ipv6_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it delivers real behavioral context beyond the schema: results are capped at 500, omitting limit returns everything, and a disabled ipv6 package yields an empty list rather than an error. It does not cover auth requirements or pagination beyond the cap, but the edge-case behavior is unusually well disclosed.

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 core purpose and the limit semantics are front-loaded in the first two sentences, with the edge-case behavior last. The README reference ('IPv6 read parity (v1.9)') is slightly extraneous pointer text but does not obscure the definition.

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?

An output schema exists, so the return-value enumeration is redundant but harmless, and the description still supplies the two things the structured data cannot: the 500 cap and the empty-list-on-disabled-package behavior. Enough for an agent to call it correctly, with only auth/permission context missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does for the non-obvious parameter: limit is optional, capped at 500 (MAX_ROUTE_LIMIT), and omitting it returns the full table. device_name is left self-explanatory by its name, but its meaning is not elaborated.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (IPv6 routing table, /ipv6/route), enumerates the returned fields, and explicitly relates itself to the sibling ip_routes ('Mirrors ip_routes for IPv6'). An agent can distinguish it from ipv6_addresses, ipv6_neighbors and ip_routes without opening any schema.

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?

Gives clear operating context: use the optional limit to cap results, omit it for the full table, and the limit is capped at 500. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this over ip_routes or ipv6_addresses beyond the IPv4/IPv6 distinction, so no exclusion criteria are spelled out.

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