List gateway routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so the description repeats some of that ("no writes ... no remote API calls"). The genuinely additive disclosure is that values are returned "only when current runtime evidence proves them" and that it reads "local configuration and runtime evidence" — telling the agent results may be incomplete or unproven rather than authoritative. No auth or rate-limit context is given.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and payload before the routing alternatives and the scope constraints. Minor redundancy between the opening scope statement and the closing "no writes, enrollment or remote API calls" clause, but nothing is padded.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be specified, yet the description still previews the returned fields (app names, ports, states, URLs) and the evidence-proving caveat. Combined with the sibling routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call it correctly.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. It does not need to compensate for any schema gap.

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?

States a specific verb and resource (read the home portal and its gateway routes) plus the concrete payload (app names, stable ports, route states, exact URLs). It explicitly distinguishes itself from portal_route_add and portal_route_remove, so an agent can route correctly without opening any schema.

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?

"Use portal_route_list to inspect existing routes; portal_route_add and portal_route_remove change routing" names the alternatives and the condition that selects this one. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., how it relates to `url` or `apps_detect`), but the read-vs-mutate split is unambiguous.

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