get_route_details

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. The verb 'Return' implies a read-only operation, and the description adds concrete output details. However, it does not disclose potential behaviors like parameter precedence, error conditions, or whether a route must already exist.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the action and lists the key outputs without any wasted words. It is easily scannable and to the point.

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?

With three optional parameters and no explanation of how to target a specific route, the description is insufficient for reliable invocation. It omits information about whether parameters are mutually exclusive or how the output is organized, despite an output schema existing.

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 coverage is 0% and the description does not mention the parameters (net, path, trace_id). The parameter names give some hints, but it is unclear whether they are alternative identifiers or combined filters, and no guidance is given on which to use or whether any are required.

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 specifies the action ('Return') and the resource ('trace segments, per-layer geometric length and via counts'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like measure_net_lengths, which likely provides simpler total length data, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus other routing-related siblings, when not to use it, or which parameter to supply. The description is purely a functionality statement with no contextual usage advice.

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