list_routes

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavior traits. The '[READ]' prefix signals a safe read operation, and the note about normalization and compatibility adds context. It does not mention pagination, error behavior, or rate limits, but for a listing tool, the key behaviors are covered.

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 concise and well-structured: a summary line, a compatibility note, and clear Args. Every sentence earns its place, though it could be slightly tightened without losing value.

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 lists routes with defined output fields, and the description covers those fields, the normalization behavior, and the parameter semantics. It lacks details on edge cases (e.g., what 'default' means for target, whether enabled filters are applied) but is sufficient for a straightforward listing tool. No output schema exists, so the field list partially compensates.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description compensates fully by explaining both parameters. It clarifies that host is an optional filter that keeps host-less catch-alls, and target is a proxy target name from config with a default. This adds specific meaning beyond the bare schema, making the parameters clear and actionable.

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 the tool lists routes normalized across platforms, with a specific set of fields. The verb 'list' and resource 'routes' distinguish it from siblings like list_services or list_middlewares, and the mention of normalization clarifies its unique purpose.

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 implies usage for retrieving all routes in a normalized format, and notes that names/paths are returned as other tools expect. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this instead of route_detail or find_route, nor does it provide exclusions or alternatives. The host and target filters give some context but not clear selection guidance.

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