get_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. The description implies a read-only detection operation but does not state safety (e.g., no modifications), required permissions, rate limits, or limitations. This lack of transparency leaves the agent uncertain about side effects and constraints.

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 of 15 words with no unnecessary details. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and fits the tool's simple nature perfectly.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should partly explain return values, which it does (path, file, methods, type). However, it omits details on pagination, error handling, or behavior when the project is not found. For a simple detection tool with zero required parameters, the description is minimally adequate but lacks completeness.

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 has 100% coverage with clear descriptions for both parameters (max_results, project). The description adds value by explaining the output structure (path, file, HTTP methods, type), which compensates for the absence of an output schema. This helps the agent understand what information will be returned.

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 tool detects API routes and pages in a Next.js App Router project, specifying the returned information (path, file, HTTP methods, type). This is a specific verb+resource combination that distinguishes it from sibling tools that deal with functions, classes, or code search.

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 clear context for when to use this tool (detecting routes in Next.js App Router projects) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools. The guidance is implicit but sufficient given the tool's unique focus.

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