get_api_routes

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

The description clearly indicates this is a read operation by saying 'Returns', but it does not disclose the cached snapshot behavior or the dataHealth mechanism. Those details exist in the parameter description but not in the tool description itself. With no annotations, the description carries the burden, and it could be more transparent about data freshness and that AWS is not re-read.

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 that front-load the exact return content and then provide a clear use case. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

With no output schema, the description appropriately lists the return values (APIs, routes, methods, paths, Lambda functions). It also covers when to use the tool and the freshness parameter, making it sufficiently complete for a listing tool of moderate complexity.

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 description does not discuss the maxAgeSeconds parameter, but the input schema fully explains it (100% coverage), including its advisory nature and the dataHealth field. Since the schema covers all parameters, the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, matching the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 returns all API Gateway APIs (REST, HTTP, WebSocket) with detailed route information and Lambda mappings. It uses a specific verb 'Returns' and a well-defined resource, effectively distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on other AWS services.

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 explicit usage context: call before writing an API handler or when reviewing API surface area and Lambda integration coverage. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or name alternatives, but the guidance is sufficiently clear and actionable.

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