List Edge Compute routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, and the '[READ]' tag merely duplicates readOnlyHint. The description adds no behavioral context such as pagination, result ordering, required permissions, or whether a nonexistent id errors versus returning an empty list. For a list endpoint of unknown size, this is a thin disclosure.

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?

It is short only because it is empty: a single bracketed tag plus an OpenAPI path reference. Brevity here reflects under-specification rather than efficient front-loading of useful information, so there is nothing to earn 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?

The tool is simple (one required id parameter, no output schema, no nested objects), but the description gives the agent essentially nothing to work with beyond a REST path. A caller gets no sense of what a 'route' record looks like or how results are scoped, which is inadequate even for a low-complexity list operation.

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% and the single required parameter edge_compute_id is undocumented in the schema. The only hint comes from the URL template showing it as a path segment; the description never explains that it identifies the parent edge compute or what form the id takes, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.

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 consists of the HTTP verb and path (GET /edge-computes/{edgeComputeId}/routes) prefixed with [READ], which does convey that routes belonging to a given edge compute are listed. However, it never states the purpose in plain language and is largely a restatement of the tool name 'list_edge_routes' plus its parent resource. It is understandable but adds little beyond the name.

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 statement of when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to siblings like get_edge_compute, list_edge_computes, create_edge_route, or update_edge_route. The only implied guidance is that the caller must supply an edge compute id, which is already visible in the schema.

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