list_routings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the result pairs routings with their per-section chain slot membership, which is useful context about the return content, though an output schema already exists and no cost, size, or ordering behavior is described.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key information (what is listed) comes first and the payload detail follows. The only weakness is mild ambiguity in domain terms like 'section' and 'signal routings'.

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 zero-parameter read-only listing with an output schema and annotations covering safety, the description supplies enough to call it correctly and to anticipate the section-to-chain-slot structure of the response. Only the routing-vs-set_routing decision is left implicit.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter meaning for the description to supply; the baseline for a no-parameter tool applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with the empty 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 uses a specific verb ('List') with a specific resource ('signal routings') and adds the payload detail 'which chain slots belong to each section'. This is clearly distinct from the mutating sibling set_routing, but it never names that sibling or any other list tool, so differentiation is inferred rather than stated.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no preconditions, and no mention of alternatives such as set_routing for changes or get_rig_spec_format for a full rig view. An agent must infer usage purely from the fact that the verb is 'List'.

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