sqo_api_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden; it does disclose genuine behavioral traits: the compact output budget ('<200 tokens') and cross-framework coverage. However it never states that the operation is read-only, whether it writes or caches anything, how frameworks are detected, or what happens on a workspace with no recognized framework.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the framework list is long but conveys real coverage information. The '<200 tokens' claim sits at the end where it is slightly less prominent than it deserves.

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 low-complexity, single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers enough to attempt a call. It still leaves the output shape essentially undefined ('route table') and does not mention read-only behavior or failure modes, which matters because no annotations supply that context.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents 'workspace' as the workspace root path. The description adds no further meaning about path semantics or expectations, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 has a specific verb ('Extract') and resource ('complete Backend & UI Route table') and enumerates the supported frameworks, so an agent can tell it targets route discovery. It lacks explicit differentiation from the close sibling sqo_api_contracts, which likely overlaps in scope.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives. The agent must infer that this applies to a workspace containing route definitions in one of the listed frameworks, and must guess how it differs from sqo_api_contracts or sqo_arch_diagram.

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