list_express_routers

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals what categories of routing information are returned but omits critical details such as side effects, return format, whether a loaded project is required, or any limitations. This leaves significant behavioral ambiguity.

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 exceptionally brief, using a compact list format to convey the key content areas. Every word adds value with no redundancy. While it is a sentence fragment rather than a full sentence, it remains efficiently structured and easy to scan.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must compensate by explaining what the agent can expect from the results. It lists content categories but does not describe the output shape, how the information is organized, or any usage context. This is insufficient for a tool that returns complex routing structures.

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 only parameter 'name' has a schema description ('Name or path of the loaded project') that fully covers its semantics, achieving 100% schema description coverage. The tool description adds no additional parameter context, which is acceptable given the baseline of 3 when schema coverage is high.

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 enumerates the specific content covered: Express sub-routers, their mounting, middleware order, and error-handlers. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_api_endpoints, though it lacks an explicit verb (e.g., 'List') in the description. The name supplies the verb, so the purpose is clear.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only lists the output content, with no mention of prerequisites, scenarios, or comparison to similar tools. Users must infer usage from the name and general Express knowledge.

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