prepare_routing_debug_pack

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

With no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the output is a checklist and pack but omits side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. For a debug pack tool, this is insufficient.

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 concise sentence, but it sacrifices necessary detail. It front-loads the purpose but fails to elaborate on parameters or output. Given the tool's complexity, it is too short.

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 3 parameters (1 required) and no output schema. The description does not explain the required 'scenario' field, optional 'version' and 'language', or what the checklist/pack looks like. This is critically incomplete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, meaning the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description does not mention any parameters, leaving 'scenario', 'version', and 'language' completely unexplained. The agent cannot determine valid inputs.

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 builds a 'documentation-backed checklist and source pack' for 'routing troubleshooting', which is specific and distinguishes it from siblings like prepare_vpn_debug_pack. However, it could be more precise about what a 'source pack' contains.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as other debug packs (e.g., prepare_vpn_debug_pack). The description does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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