Find API Routes

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, and the description consistently supports that by describing a search-only operation. It adds useful behavioral context beyond annotations, including supported frameworks, the fact that paths require no registration, and default output settings. Minor unspecified details like error behavior or exact route-detection limitations are acceptable given the annotations and output schema.

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 well-structured with a clear opening statement, Supported Frameworks section, Args list, and Examples, making it easy to scan. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the fully-described input schema, which prevents a perfect score, but the overall length is appropriate and front-loaded.

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 read-only search tool with an output schema, rich parameter descriptions, and strong annotations, the description is thorough: it covers scope, supported frameworks, filtering modes, ad-hoc paths, defaults, output format, and practical examples. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to invoke this tool or how to invoke it correctly is missing.

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 already has 100% parameter description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description's Args section largely restates the schema rather than adding new meaning, though the examples do illustrate how parameters can be combined effectively. This is adequate but not additive enough to warrant a higher score.

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 opens with the specific, action-oriented purpose: 'Find API route/endpoint definitions in backend code across repositories.' It names the exact resource type (HTTP route definitions) and supported frameworks (Express, Fastify, NestJS, Laravel), which clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like repolens_find_functions and repolens_find_classes.

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 gives clear context on what the tool searches and how to scope it, and the examples demonstrate concrete invocation patterns such as searching a directory directly with paths or filtering by repoFilter and method. It does not explicitly mention alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool, so it falls just short of a perfect score.

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