routeList

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It accurately states that the tool lists routes, implying a read-only operation, but does not describe output format, filtering semantics, or any potential side effects. This is adequate for a simple list tool but lacks richer behavioral context.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and filtering ability. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or fluff. The omission of 'method' is a minor content issue, not a conciseness issue.

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 simplicity, a full output schema is absent, but the description covers the primary function and filtering orientation. The schema compensates for the missing 'method' mention. Overall, the description is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's role, though it could be enhanced by noting it reads route definitions.

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 100% description coverage for all three parameters (uri, name, method), so the schema already provides the necessary meaning. The description only mentions 'name or URI' and omits 'method', adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Laravel routes'), and clearly states the filtering capability. It differentiates this tool from sibling tools like 'migrateStatus' or 'configGet' by its focus on routes, though it omits the 'method' filter from the prose, making it slightly incomplete.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies its use by describing what it does, but there are no usage scenarios, exclusions, or mentions of sibling tools such as 'artisan' or 'schema'. This falls short of even clear contextual usage guidance.

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