find_route

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

readOnlyHint=true already establishes this is a safe read, and the '[READ]' tag merely repeats that. The description does add genuine behavioral detail beyond the annotation: matching is static (not runtime/dynamic) and results are ordered best-first, which tells the agent how to interpret the returned list.

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?

Front-loaded one-line summary followed by a compact args block; every sentence is functional and there is no filler. The '[READ]' prefix is slight redundancy against readOnlyHint, but it costs almost nothing.

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?

No output schema exists, yet the description implies the return is an ordered list of matching routes, and it compensates for 0% schema coverage by documenting all three parameters. It stops short of describing the result shape precisely or clarifying what 'static match' excludes (e.g. regex/dynamic routing), which an agent might want.

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%, so the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: host is defined as the hostname to match with an example, path as the request path with its '/' default, and target as a proxy target name with 'omit for the default'. Minor gap: no format hints beyond the example, but all three parameters are given meaning.

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 and resource: it resolves which routes would serve a given host/path, and the parenthetical '(static match, best first)' clarifies it is a prediction/lookup rather than a live-router query. This distinguishes it from siblings like list_routes, route_detail, and route_conflict_analysis, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Usage is implied by the framing ('which routes WOULD serve a host/path') – you call it to test-match a request against configuration. However, there is no explicit when-to-use, no when-not-to-use, and no mention of which sibling to prefer for enumerating routes (list_routes) or inspecting a single one (route_detail).

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