get_routing_table

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

The annotations already mark it read-only and non-destructive; the description adds a '[READ-ONLY]' confirmation and, more valuably, reveals the exact command executed ('show routing route'), giving the agent concrete knowledge of device-side behavior. The description is fully consistent with the annotations — no contradiction.

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?

Two compact sentences that front-load the purpose and follow with the exact device command. The '[READ-ONLY]' prefix is a minor redundancy with readOnlyHint, but otherwise every element earns its place.

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 tool with a single optional parameter and no output schema, this is reasonably complete: the agent knows what is retrieved and which command runs. The only notable omission is any indication of the return shape or volume, which would also help differentiate it from get_static_routes.

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 alone fully documents the optional firewall parameter, including when it is required. The description therefore does not need to add parametric detail; it only loosely mirrors the target via 'from the firewall.' Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource: 'Retrieves the current routing table from the firewall,' and discloses the underlying device command 'show routing route,' which pins down the exact operation. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling get_static_routes, though the phrase 'routing table' plus the show command makes the distinction largely inferable.

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?

Provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus the many get_* siblings, notably get_static_routes, which is the most likely confusable alternative. The agent must infer selection criteria from the tool name alone; the description never states the condition for choosing this tool over alternatives.

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