get_static_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description reinforces this with '[READ-ONLY]'. It adds a config path detail, which provides mild implementation context, but it does not explain return format, pagination, or behavior when no routes exist.

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 short sentences with no filler. The read-only marker and primary action are front-loaded, making the purpose immediately visible.

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 simple read-only tool with fully documented optional parameters and no nested objects, the description plus annotations are almost sufficient. The only minor gap is that no return format is described, but the nature of the tool makes this a limited concern.

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 both parameters (firewall and virtual_router) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond referencing the virtual-router config path.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Retrieves static routes from a virtual router.' The mention of static routes distinguishes it from related siblings like get_routing_table, add_static_route, and delete_static_route without ambiguity.

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, such as get_routing_table for a broader view or the add/delete route tools for modifications. The reader must infer usage from the name and the basic description.

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