site_route_list

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. While 'List' implies a read-only operation, the description doesn't address important behavioral aspects like pagination behavior (implied by pageNumber/pageSize parameters but not explained), rate limits, authentication requirements, error conditions, or what format the returned routes will have. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with pagination parameters.

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 that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward listing operation and front-loads the core functionality.

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 pagination parameters (pageNumber, pageSize) and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the pagination behavior, return format, or what constitutes a 'route' in this context. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should provide more context about the operation's behavior and results.

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 schema has 100% description coverage, 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 - it mentions filtering by site but doesn't explain the relationship between siteId and routeName filtering or how pagination works. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 site'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from sibling tools like 'routine_route_list' or 'er_record_list', which appear to perform similar listing operations for different resources.

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, when-not-to-use scenarios, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'route_get' (for single routes) or 'routine_route_list' (which might list routes for routines rather than sites).

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