subprefixes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of explaining behavior. It does disclose what the tool returns — announced more-specifics and an estimate of unrouted space — and defines the estimate's meaning. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether filters or limits apply, or what output format to expect.

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 and contains no filler; the em-dash definition of unrouted space adds value. It would be slightly stronger if it began with a verb to make the tool's action explicit.

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 three parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is incomplete. It does not explain the start/end range semantics, the output structure, or the caveats of the unrouted-space estimate, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool confidently.

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 only indirectly maps 'more-specifics inside a block' to the required prefix parameter. The start and end parameters are not explained at all, so agents must guess their meaning, format, and the effect of the null defaults.

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 identifies a concrete object — announced more-specifics inside a block — and adds a distinctive second output: an estimate of unrouted space. It lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'lists', so it reads as a noun phrase, but the resource and function are inferable from context.

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?

No guidance is given on when to call this tool versus siblings such as detect, inventory, or relationships. There are no conditional triggers, expected scenarios, or statements about when not to use it, so an agent must infer applicability from the name and domain context.

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