get_routing_config

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action ('get') but doesn't describe what 'routing configuration' entails, whether it's read-only or has side effects, any permissions required, or the format of the returned data. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, efficient sentence in Russian that directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, with zero waste, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 complexity of a configuration retrieval tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 1 parameter, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'routing configuration' includes, how it relates to the optional 'app_id', or what the return values look like. For a tool that likely returns structured data, more context is needed to be fully helpful.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, documenting 'app_id' as optional. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides. With 0 parameters effectively covered by the description, the baseline is 4, as the schema fully handles parameter documentation without need for compensation.

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 'Получить конфигурацию маршрутизации' (Get routing configuration) states a clear verb ('получить' - get) and resource ('конфигурацию маршрутизации' - routing configuration), establishing the basic purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_app_info', 'get_plugin_info', or 'get_system_config', which also retrieve configuration data, leaving ambiguity about what specifically distinguishes this tool.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'get_app_info' and 'get_system_config' that might retrieve related configuration data, there's no indication of context, prerequisites, or exclusions. Usage is implied only by the tool name and description, lacking explicit direction.

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