device_route_list

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the behavioral disclosure. It only restates that the tool lists routes and limits scope to a unit; it does not mention pagination defaults, filter combination behavior, response shape, or whether the operation is safe beyond what 'List' implies. This leaves the agent to infer important behavioral details.

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 a single short sentence with no filler, placing the action, object, and scope immediately. It is as concise as possible while remaining meaningful.

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?

The schema fully documents all parameters, so an agent can construct a valid request with confidence. However, given the large sibling tool set and the absence of an output schema or annotations, the description does not clarify return shape, default sorting/pagination semantics, or when to choose this list tool over route count or network route list tools.

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?

All seven parameters already have descriptions in the schema, giving 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's 'in a unit' reinforces the required unit parameter but does not add any meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 names a concrete action ('List') and object ('device routes') and bounds the scope to a unit, so an agent can tell what it does. It does not explicitly contrast with network_route_list or device_route_count, so it loses the fifth point.

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 usage guidance is provided: nothing says when to prefer this over device_route_count, device_route_create, network_route_list, or other route-related siblings. The verb 'List' implies a read operation, but the description does not state when this tool is the right choice or when an alternative would be better.

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