list_static_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, indicating a safe, read-only operation. The description adds behavioral context by specifying the resource and parameters, and does not contradict any annotation.

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 brief and front-loaded with the '[READ]' label and purpose statement. It lists parameters clearly. Every sentence is necessary, though the arg format could be slightly tighter. Overall, it's efficient.

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?

With an output schema present (though not detailed), the description does not need to cover return values. It explains the tool's purpose and all parameters adequately. Given the low complexity and annotations, it is sufficiently complete.

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 0%, but the description fully explains all three parameters: tier1_id as the gateway ID based on gateway_type, gateway_type as either 'tier0' or 'tier1' with default, and target as optional. This provides complete meaning beyond the schema.

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 'List static routes on a Tier-0 or Tier-1 gateway.' It uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('static routes'), and specifies the scope (gateway types). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like create_static_route and delete_static_route.

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?

The description clarifies the tool's purpose and parameters, making it obvious when to use it (to list static routes). It does not explicitly discuss when not to use it or mention alternatives, but the context is sufficient given the tool's specific focus.

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