alexa_list_routines

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the return-shape breakdown (what each routine carries), but says nothing about auth requirements, pagination, or result limits. With annotations carrying the safety burden, a 3 fits – additive but modest.

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?

A single tight sentence with the resource front-loaded and the field breakdown following the em-dash. Every clause earns its place; no filler or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must carry the return shape – and it does, listing name, id, enabled state, and trigger types. This makes the tool callable with confidence, though it omits pagination/limit behavior that a full inventory of returns might include.

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?

Only one parameter ('view') and schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both enum values fully. The description does not mention 'view' or when to pick compact vs full, so it adds nothing over the schema – baseline 3 is correct.

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 ("List") plus resource ("Alexa routines") and enumerates the returned fields (name/trigger phrase, id, enabled, trigger type). The verb 'list' clearly separates it from the sibling alexa_run_routine without needing either 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?

A listing/read tool whose usage is largely self-evident, but the description offers no explicit when-to-use framing and names no alternative. It never says e.g. "use this to discover an id before calling alexa_run_routine," so the routing to the obvious sibling is only implied.

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