find_route

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

The description explicitly marks the tool as '[READ]' and describes the matching behavior ('static match, best first'), which are useful behavioral cues. However, with no annotations, it doesn't fully disclose return format, error handling, or permission requirements.

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 compact, front-loaded with the main purpose, and uses a clear argument list. Every sentence contributes critical information.

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 description covers the tool's function and parameters, but with no output schema it fails to state what the function returns (e.g., route names, details, ordering). It also doesn't mention potential failure modes or how 'best first' is determined.

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?

Despite 0% schema description coverage, the description explains all three parameters with examples and defaults: host as hostname, path defaulting to '/', and target as proxy target from config. This provides essential semantic information beyond the schema's bare types.

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 phrase 'Which routes would serve a host/path' clearly identifies the tool's function as a host/path-to-route matcher. The additional '(static match, best first)' distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_routes or route_detail that merely enumerate or describe routes.

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 makes the tool's purpose clear, implying an agent should use it whenever it needs to resolve a request to a route. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling tools like list_routes or route_conflict_analysis, missing an opportunity to provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance.

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