route_conflict_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states '[READ]' and 'statically finds,' indicating a read-only analysis, and describes fetching the route table and service list. It also discloses the output dict keys and explains that each finding names the covering route or missing service. Missing details like rate limits or failure modes prevent a 5.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose ('Shadowed routes, dead routes, and redirect loops') before going into parameter details. The 'Args:' section is organized and the return format is listed succinctly. It is longer than necessary, but each section adds value and there is no wasted repetition.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (analyzing three types of routing issues), no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides a substantial amount of context: it covers the three finding categories, the parameter structures, and the return dictionary keys. It does not mention edge cases or error conditions, so it is not fully complete, but it is adequate for an agent to understand and use the tool.

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must fully compensate. It does this thoroughly: routes expects rows with fields {name, hosts, paths, priority, service, enabled, redirectTo}, services expects {name, serversTotal, serversUp}, and target is explained with 'omit for the default.' This gives complete semantic meaning beyond the bare 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 opens with '[READ] Shadowed routes, dead routes, and redirect loops (static)' and then elaborates as 'The flagship routing hygiene analysis' that finds three specific types of routing problems. This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_routes or route_detail, which merely retrieve route information.

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 provides clear usage context: it can fetch the route table and service list, or accept injected routes/services for pure analysis. It explains the optional target parameter and its default behavior. However, it does not explicitly compare itself to alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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