ListRoutes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states '获取' (get/list) which implies a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify pagination behavior (implied by PageSize/PageNumber parameters), rate limits, authentication needs, or what happens if parameters are omitted. For a tool with 5 parameters and no annotations, this is insufficient.

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 that directly states the tool's purpose. It's front-loaded with no unnecessary words, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 complexity (5 parameters including pagination and sorting), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the return format (e.g., list structure, error handling), behavioral constraints, or usage context. For a list operation with multiple parameters, more guidance is needed.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents all 5 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., no examples of valid NetworkId formats or pagination defaults). With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even without param info in the description.

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 '获取网络资源的路由列表' clearly states the verb ('获取' meaning 'get' or 'list') and resource ('网络资源的路由列表' meaning 'network resource route list'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from other list tools like ListNetworks or ListResources, which would require sibling differentiation for a score of 5.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There's no mention of prerequisites (e.g., needing a ResourceGroupId), exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools like GetRoute (which might fetch a single route). It's a bare statement of function with no usage context.

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