route

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

The description discloses non-obvious stateful behavior beyond the generic annotations: the stub persists until unroute, and the call is recorded as an action but never part of a replay path. This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations alone do not provide.

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 two sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. Each clause earns its place by adding either the purpose, the persistence rule, or the recording semantics.

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 output schema and annotations, the description covers the most important non-obvious behavior: lifecycle, action recording, and replay exclusion. It could be more complete by explaining how status/body/abort shape the stubbed response, but the parameter names and defaults largely compensate.

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%, so the description had the burden of explaining parameters, but it only mentions the URL pattern conceptually and says nothing about status, body, abort, or content_type semantics. The parameter names and defaults provide some hints, but the description does not compensate for the missing 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 names the action ('Stub or block'), the resource ('requests matching a URL pattern'), and the context ('testing'). It also differentiates from the sibling unroute by explicitly noting that the stub persists until unroute.

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 '(testing)' tag and the mention of unroute give useful situational context, but the description does not explicitly state when to choose route over alternatives like network or how it relates to replay behavior. Usage guidance is implied rather than fully spelled out.

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