get_route

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits, but it only says 'Get detailed information.' It doesn't mention what fields are returned, if the route must exist, any permission requirements, or potential errors. This is minimal and adds little beyond the tool's name.

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 sentence of nine words, front-loaded with the action and resource. No unnecessary words or repetition; it's appropriately concise for a simple getter.

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?

The tool is simple, but with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter descriptions, the description is insufficient for an agent to correctly invoke the tool or understand the response. It lacks guidance on parameter usage and expected return content.

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 0%, and the description provides no parameter explanations. The agent must infer that 'name' refers to the route name, but 'namespace' and 'cluster_alias' are not explained at all. The description fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.

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 tool's purpose: getting detailed information about a specific OpenShift Route. The verb 'Get' and resource 'specific OpenShift Route' distinguish it from listing tools like list_routes. No ambiguity is present.

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 phrase 'specific OpenShift Route' indicates when to use this tool (for a single route by name) versus listing all routes. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, such as 'use list_routes for multiple routes'.

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