list_routing_entries

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must bear the full burden. It implies a read-only operation via 'List' but does not disclose potential side effects, authentication requirements, pagination behavior, or response structure, adding little beyond the tool's name.

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 two sentences: the first states the tool's purpose, and the second defines the parameters. It is concise, front-loaded, and contains no redundant wording.

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?

For a two-parameter list operation, the parameter semantics are well covered. However, with no output schema or annotations, the description omits return value shape, pagination, and prerequisites, which are relevant for an agent invoking the tool.

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 description explicitly explains both required parameters: host accepts console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId format), and site accepts site name or ID. This is highly valuable given the schema provides no parameter descriptions and coverage is 0%.

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 clearly states the verb 'List' and the resource 'static routing table entries', with scope 'for a site'. It is distinguishable from sibling list tools by the resource type, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative, making the purpose clear but not fully differentiated.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_traffic_routes or list_firewall_rules. It only states the operation and parameter formats, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context without any explicit selection criteria.

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