route_detail

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral transparency burden. The '[READ]' prefix signals a non-mutating operation, and the argument explanations add context about accepted route name formats and target defaults. However, it does not disclose error behavior, return format details, 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 concise and well-structured, starting with a clear one-sentence purpose and following with a compact argument list. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 is adequate for a simple read tool: it states the input source, explains both parameters, and indicates the operation returns full details. It could be more complete by specifying the output shape or failure behavior, but given the low complexity, it is mostly sufficient.

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 must compensate, and it does thoroughly. It explains that 'name' can be a traefik router name, caddy route config path, or haproxy frontend name, and clarifies that 'target' is a proxy target name from config with a sensible default when omitted.

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 returns 'One route's full detail by name', with a specific verb, resource, and scope. The phrase 'from list_routes' distinguishes it from the sibling list_routes tool and indicates the workflow.

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 after list_routes by stating the input comes from list_routes, which provides clear contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use the tool or name alternatives such as find_route.

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