ppt_list_routes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral constraints: the tool only lists routes and must not infer or recommend one. It also states the expected next step, which clarifies the tool's limited role. However, it does not describe data source, latency, or any potential errors, leaving some behavioral aspects implicit.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by critical usage constraints. Every sentence earns its place; there is 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?

Given the tool has zero parameters and an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It provides complete context for the agent: list routes, ask the user, then call `ppt_check_route`. This is sufficient for correct invocation within the sibling toolset.

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 is empty, so there are no parameters to explain. Per rubric, this yields a baseline of 4. The description adds no parameter details because none exist, and that 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 immediately states the tool's purpose: 'List human-friendly routes for the user to choose from.' It uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('routes'), and clearly differentiates its role from the sibling `ppt_check_route` by framing listing as a pre-step to checking a chosen route.

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 guidance: 'Do not choose, infer, or recommend a route on the user's behalf' and explicitly directs the next action: 'call `ppt_check_route` with that route and `route_confirmed=true`.' This tells the agent exactly when and how to use the tool within the workflow.

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