get_traffic_route

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states the action ('Get') without revealing any additional behavior such as permission requirements, error handling, or response format. This is a minimal read operation, yet the description adds little beyond what the tool name implies.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the parameter clarifications are concise and directly useful. Every sentence earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description could have included what the response contains or behavior on missing/invalid IDs. However, for a simple single-entity retrieval with well-clarified parameters, the current description is mostly sufficient, though not fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema provides only type strings with 0% description coverage, but the description compensates fully by clarifying acceptable formats: host can be console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId), site can be name or ID, and route_id is required with a clear source. This is essential semantic detail that the schema alone does not provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('single traffic route by ID'), clearly differentiating from list/create/delete route siblings. It also names the source for obtaining the route_id, reinforcing the tool's single-entity retrieval purpose.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description tells the agent exactly how to obtain the required route_id ('Obtain it from list_traffic_routes'), which is practical usage guidance. It does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the purpose is self-evident from the tool name and description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.