GetRoute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states the action ('get route information') but lacks behavioral details such as required permissions, error handling (e.g., if ID is invalid), response format, or any side effects. For a read operation without annotations, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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, efficient sentence in Chinese ('根据ID获取指定路由信息'), directly stating the purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it highly concise and well-structured for its simplicity.

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's simplicity (1 parameter, read-only implied), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is minimal. It states what the tool does but lacks context on behavior, output, or integration with other tools. For a basic retrieval tool, it's functional but incomplete, as it doesn't guide the agent on practical use or potential issues.

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 has 100% description coverage, with the parameter 'Id' documented as '路由ID' (route ID). The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or constraints. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema adequately covers the single parameter.

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 states the verb ('获取' meaning 'get') and resource ('路由信息' meaning 'route information'), specifying it's based on ID. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'ListRoutes' by focusing on a single route retrieval rather than listing. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with other 'Get' tools (e.g., 'GetDataServiceApi'), leaving some ambiguity in sibling differentiation.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid route ID), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like 'ListRoutes' for browsing or other 'Get' tools for different resources. Usage is implied by the action but not explicitly defined.

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