askew_list_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses what the tool returns in detail, states that it takes no arguments, and positions it as an inspection step before execution, implying no side effects. It stops short of explicitly stating that it does not modify state or describing failure behavior, but for a list operation these are minor gaps.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and then provides a dense but purposeful enumeration of returned fields and usage guidance. Every sentence adds value, with no filler or 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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description compensates by enumerating every category of returned data and explaining the field-level semantics, including inputExample, input hint, and output hint. It also tells the agent what to do when a route lacks a contract, making it complete for safe invocation.

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 is empty and schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 4. The description reinforces this by explicitly saying 'Takes no arguments,' leaving no ambiguity about invocation.

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 ('List') and a clear resource ('everything an agent can act on in this account'), then enumerates the exact contents: connector details, devices, and routes. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling askew_run by framing this as the discovery step before execution.

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?

It explicitly instructs the agent to call this before askew_run to learn the exact input keys a route expects. It also provides a clear conditional behavior: if a route shows no contract, ask the user what the Shortcut expects before running it.

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