detect_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the behavioral nuance of discovering endpoints rather than just listing predefined ones. It does not explain what 'overrides' are or how they are emitted, but the output schema may cover return values. No contradiction with annotations.

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, highly concise and easy to parse. However, the phrasing 'Work out' is informal and could be more precise (e.g., 'Discover'). Non-essential words are absent, but the brevity risks sacrificing clarity.

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 one parameter, an output schema, and strong annotations, the description needs to clarify the tool's purpose and any domain-specific terms. It does not explain what 'overrides' refers to, and the exact output format is delegated to the output schema. The description is sufficient for a simple tool but leaves significant context on the table.

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 schema fully describes the only parameter 'probe' with a clear explanation of its fallback behavior, resulting in 100% schema description coverage. The tool description itself adds no additional parameter context, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 indicates the tool's function: determine the deployment's actual endpoints and emit overrides for them. It distinguishes itself from siblings like describe_api (which likely describes the API) by focusing on 'real' endpoints. However, 'work out' is informal and 'overrides' is not explained, making it slightly less crisp than ideal.

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 explicit usage guidance is provided. The description does not state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like describe_api or request, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusion criteria. The parameter schema hints at fallback behavior, but the overall when-to-use context is absent.

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