list_static_routes

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), it discloses the result envelope with `truncated` flag, that querying the wrong tier returns an empty list rather than an error, and that BGP routes are excluded. These are valuable behavioral traits not available from annotations.

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 front-loaded with a clear one-liner, then provides return behavior, usage guidance, and parameter details in a structured Args format. Every sentence adds critical information without fluff.

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 read-only list tool with no output schema, the description fully covers purpose, usage flow, edge cases (wrong tier, truncated results), and parameter semantics. It even distinguishes from BGP routes, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 has 0% description coverage, but the description compensates with an Args section explaining tier1_id, gateway_type, and target. It clarifies tier1_id can be Tier-0 or Tier-1 based on gateway_type, lists valid gateway_type values, and describes target as 'NSX Manager target from config'.

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 'List static routes on a Tier-0 or Tier-1 gateway' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like get_bgp_neighbors (BGP routes) and create/delete_static_route by framing its role in the workflow.

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?

Explicitly says to use before create_static_route to avoid id clash and before delete_static_route to confirm destination/next hops. Also clarifies 'BGP-learned routes are not here; use get_bgp_neighbors', providing a clear alternative.

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