get_route_map

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. The verb 'Get' implies a read-only retrieval with no side effects, which is positive. However, the description does not mention any potential limitations (e.g., size of mapping, performance), authentication needs, or data freshness. It is minimally adequate but not thorough.

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 that effectively front-loads the main purpose. It is concise but lists many return items in a stream-of-consciousness style. Slightly improving structure (e.g., listing items) could enhance readability but it remains efficient.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers the return content comprehensively (routes, components, protection, hooks, child components, dynamic segments, hierarchy). It is nearly complete for a simple retrieval tool, though it lacks mention of any edge cases or limitations.

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?

There are zero parameters, and the input schema is empty with 100% coverage. According to the guidelines, the baseline for 0 parameters is 4. The description adds no parameter information because there are none, which is appropriate.

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 purpose: getting the complete route -> page -> component mapping. It lists specific return items (protection status, hooks, child components, etc.), making it highly specific and differentiating it from siblings that might focus on other aspects like component details or architecture overviews.

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 on when to use this tool vs alternatives such as get_architecture_overview or get_component_detail. The description only states what the tool does, but omits any context about when it's appropriate or when to choose another sibling tool.

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