list_static_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds two useful facts beyond that: a hard cap of 20 configured routes and a distinction between persisted configuration and the derived live routing table. It does not say what happens if the live table is unavailable or how large the live table response can be.

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?

A single terse fragment with zero padding, and the primary resource is front-loaded ahead of the optional variant. Slight deduction for fragment style with no verb, which makes the sentence read like a label rather than an instruction.

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 return shape need not be described, and the tool is a simple read with one optional flag. Still missing are the default behavior when the flag is omitted and any note on failure or empty results, which for a config-inspection tool an agent would benefit from knowing before calling.

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 for the single boolean is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning — and it partially does: 'optionally the router's live routing table' explains what include_live_table adds. It does not state the default (false) or that omitting it returns only configured routes, so the compensation is incomplete.

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?

Names a specific resource ('Configured IPv4 static routes') and a scope cap ('max 20'), plus the optional secondary payload ('router's live routing table'). It is distinguishable from add_static_route/delete_static_route by the read-only noun, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with those siblings.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance. It hints that the live table is opt-in, but does not say when an agent should prefer this over a live-status sibling such as router_status, nor when not to call it (e.g. when only the configured routes are needed, leave include_live_table off).

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