list_traffic_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral disclosure burden. It only says 'List' (implying a read operation) and explains parameter formats, but does not disclose return structure, pagination, permissions, or any side effects. For a tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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 short and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose, and the second provides parameter details. No filler. It loses one point only because it omits any usage guidance or alternative routing, which would have made it fully effective.

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 list operation with two parameters, the parameter explanations are adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, the description does not mention what the response contains, how results are ordered/paginated, or how this tool differs from list_traffic_rules. It is minimally sufficient but incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaningful semantics beyond the bare string types by explaining that host accepts a console name, ID, or composite ID (MAC:numericId), and site accepts a name or ID. This is useful and directly helps the agent construct correct parameters.

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 action ('List') and resource ('static/policy traffic routes') scoped to a site. It is a clear list operation, but it does not distinguish itself from the similar sibling tool list_traffic_rules, so a small ambiguity remains.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like list_traffic_rules and get_traffic_route, the description does not explain why one would choose this tool or when a different one would be more appropriate. Usage context is entirely absent beyond the trivial 'for a site'.

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