fleetsync_get_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return type (a list of route summaries), which is a useful detail, but it omits any mention of side effects, pagination, ordering, or limitations. The 'Get' verb implies a read-only operation, but the description adds modest value beyond that.

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 two short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the action in the first sentence and the return value in the second, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 no-parameter list-all tool, the description covers the essential behavior and return value. However, with no output schema, it could enhance completeness by explaining what a 'route summary' contains or noting ordering/pagination. Still, it is nearly sufficient for this tool's simplicity.

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 zero parameters and the schema is empty (100% coverage). According to the rubric, a 0-parameter tool earns a baseline of 4. The description correctly provides no parameter details since there are none to explain.

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 gets all FleetSync routes and returns a list of route summaries. The use of 'all' distinguishes it from the singular 'fleetsync_get_route' sibling, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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 like 'fleetsync_routes_by_date' or 'fleetsync_get_route'. The description only states what it does, leaving the agent to infer usage without explicit exclusions or alternative references.

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