routes_for

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes input formats and output format but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires authentication. The implied read behavior is not explicitly stated.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then detailing input formats and return structure. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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 output schema exists (though not shown), the description adequately covers input and output expectations. It lacks some behavioral context (e.g., read-only guarantee) but otherwise provides sufficient detail for a simple query tool.

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 0% description coverage, providing only a title for the parameter. The description compensates by clearly explaining the accepted formats (bare class, fully qualified, or qualified action) with concrete examples, adding significant meaning beyond the 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 tool's purpose: returning HTTP routes that hit a controller or controller#action. It explicitly specifies it is Rails-specific and describes the return format (verb/url/handler). This differentiates it from sibling tools which deal with code analysis and definitions.

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 mentions the tool is 'Rails-specific', giving context for when to use it (Rails projects). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives among sibling tools. No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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