network_route_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'List' implies a read-only operation, but the description does not state whether it is non-mutating, describe pagination or sorting behavior, or indicate what the response contains. For a 6-parameter tool with no annotations, this is insufficient behavioral context.

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 one short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or redundant wording. It communicates the core purpose immediately. However, it is so terse that it omits context that would be useful for call selection, so it does not earn a 5.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, a one-sentence purpose-only description leaves important gaps: the return format is not described, pagination behavior is not summarized, and there is no guidance distinguishing this from similar route tools. The complete parameter schema helps, but the description alone is not enough for an agent to confidently know what to expect or when to prefer this tool.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all six parameters, including unit, sort, limit, offset, network, and application. The description adds no new parameter meaning beyond noting the unit scope, which matches the required unit parameter. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'List network routes in a unit.' It clearly indicates that the operation is a list action and that it is scoped to a unit, which separates it from route create/count/delete tools. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools such as device_route_list or network_route_count, but the resource and verb are clear enough for basic differentiation.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like network_route_count or device_route_list. The description provides only the action itself, with no mention of limitations, prerequisites, or conditions that would make this tool the right choice.

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