List routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds only the raw HTTP path (GET /v1/notification-routes), which is a mapping detail rather than agent-relevant behavior such as pagination, result ordering, or whether the list is workspace-scoped.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the operation. It is efficient, though the parenthetical endpoint restates the operation rather than adding information the agent can act on.

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?

This is a simple read-only list tool with no output schema, so the description should at minimum state what the returned routes represent and how they relate to channels. It stops at the endpoint name, leaving the agent to infer the payload.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline of 4 applies; a note that no filtering or pagination inputs exist would be the only possible addition.

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 gives a specific verb and resource ("List routes"), which is better than a tautology, but it does not distinguish this from sibling notification tools such as notifications_listChannels, notifications_createRoute or notifications_deleteRoute. An agent cannot tell from this text whether a "route" is the same concept as a "channel" or how the two relate.

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?

There is no guidance on when to call this versus the other notification-management tools, and no stated prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.

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