List configured routes

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

Annotations provide readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the output format ('Return JSON') and the scope ('all groups'), which are not covered by annotations. However, it lacks details on rate limits, authentication needs, or pagination behavior, though annotations reduce the burden.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's action, resource, and scope without any redundant information. It is front-loaded and appropriately sized for its purpose.

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 low complexity (1 optional parameter), annotations covering safety, and the presence of an output schema, the description is complete enough. It clearly states what the tool does and what it returns, aligning well with the structured data provided.

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 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, and the description does not mention parameters. However, since there is only one optional parameter (server), the tool's core functionality is clear without parameter details. The description compensates for the low schema coverage by fully explaining the tool's purpose and output.

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 specific action ('Return JSON describing') and resource ('all configured Stream and Edge routes in all groups in the Cribl deployment'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like list_breakers, list_destinations, etc. It precisely identifies what is being listed (routes) and their scope (all groups).

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 implies usage for retrieving route configurations but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_groups or list_pipelines. No exclusions or specific contexts are provided, leaving usage guidance at an implied level without clear differentiation from siblings.

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