routine_route_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't mention pagination behavior (though pagination parameters exist in the schema), rate limits, authentication requirements, or what format the returned data takes. For a tool with 4 parameters and no annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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, clear sentence that efficiently communicates the core purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized for a listing operation and gets straight to the point.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the pagination behavior (despite having pageNumber and pageSize parameters), doesn't mention what data format is returned, and provides no context about error conditions or prerequisites. The description should do more to compensate for the lack of structured metadata.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema itself. The description doesn't add any meaningful parameter semantics beyond what's already in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain how pagination works together or provide examples of routine names). With complete schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the action ('List all routes') and the target resource ('associated with a specific Edge Routine'), which provides a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'site_route_list' or 'route_get', which appear to handle similar route-related operations.

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 like 'site_route_list' or 'route_get' from the sibling list. It mentions filtering by route name in the input schema but doesn't explain when this filtering capability should be used versus other tools.

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