hookbase_list_routes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states this is a list operation but doesn't describe return format, pagination behavior, sorting, filtering capabilities, or error conditions. The explanation of what routes are adds some context, but doesn't cover how the listing behaves operationally.

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?

Two concise sentences that efficiently convey the purpose and provide helpful context about what routes are. The first sentence states the action clearly, and the second adds valuable explanatory context without redundancy. Every word earns its place.

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 simple list operation with no parameters and no output schema, the description is adequate but has gaps. It explains what's being listed and provides domain context about routes, but doesn't describe the return format or behavioral aspects. Without annotations or output schema, the agent lacks information about what the response contains.

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 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description doesn't need to explain parameters, and it doesn't attempt to describe any nonexistent parameters. The mention of 'all routes' implies no filtering parameters exist, which aligns 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 clearly states the verb ('List') and resource ('all routes in the organization'), and explains what routes are ('connect sources to destinations and define how webhooks are processed'). It distinguishes from siblings like hookbase_get_route (singular) by specifying 'all routes'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools like hookbase_list_sources or hookbase_list_destinations beyond the resource type.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention when you'd want to list all routes versus getting a specific route with hookbase_get_route, or how this relates to other list operations. There's no context about prerequisites, timing, or exclusions.

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