browser_route_list

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description adds no new behavioral details (e.g., rate limits, data exposure), but it does not contradict annotations. With strong annotation coverage, the description does not need to add much, and it is consistent.

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 5 words, which is maximally concise and front-loaded. Every word is necessary and 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?

Given the tool has zero parameters, no output schema, and annotations cover safety and openness, the single-sentence description is fully sufficient. No additional completeness is needed for this simple list operation.

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?

Input schema has 0 parameters, so schema description coverage is 100% (no params to cover). The description correctly omits parameter details as none exist. No additional semantic burden is required.

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 'List all active network routes' uses a specific verb (List) and resource (active network routes). It is distinct from its sibling tools like browser_route (likely routing configuration) and browser_network_requests (requests), clearly differentiating purpose.

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 briefly implies usage for inspecting active routes, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it over alternatives like browser_network_requests or browser_network_state_set. There are no exclusions or context for when not to use it.

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