capability_restricted_routes

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

The description indicates a read-only listing behavior ('Lists') and adds useful routing context, but with no annotations it does not explicitly disclose side-effect-freeness, output structure, or prerequisites. For a no-argument list tool, this is adequate but not rich.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the context and includes only relevant information. There is no filler, and every word contributes to understanding the tool's role.

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?

For a no-parameter tool, invocation is trivially easy, but the lack of an output schema places more burden on the description to clarify what the returned list looks like. It names the high-level content of the list but does not specify the format an agent should expect, leaving mild ambiguity.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to add. The baseline of 4 applies because nothing is missing.

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 states a specific verb ('Lists') and a specific resource ('capabilities restricted by Roblox 3rd-party HTTP/sandbox... routed directly to Official Roblox Studio MCP'), and it gives concrete categories like 3D AI, Asset Insertion, Screen Capture, and Playtest Input. It is clear about what the tool returns, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling capability-related tools like capability_discover or capability_audit.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as capability_discover, capability_audit, or capability_resolve. No conditions, exclusions, or sibling comparisons are provided, leaving selection largely to the agent's inference.

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