migros_unrouted

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of disclosure. It usefully explains that these paths are unrouted and resolve to plain 404, which sets expectations, but it does not clarify whether invoking the tool performs a live request or simply returns a static list.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core fact and followed by a compact rationale. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant wording.

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?

For a zero-parameter informational tool with an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains the origin and non-routed status of the paths. Minor gaps remain around invocation behavior and intended use, but the low complexity keeps these from being severe.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning beyond the empty schema.

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 identifies the resource as paths recovered from the binary that the live gateway does not route, and explicitly notes they are not exposed as tools. This distinguishes it from all sibling endpoint tools, though it could more explicitly frame the operation as 'list' or 'report.'

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It explains why the data exists ('kept for transparency') but does not state when an agent should call it, whether it is diagnostic-only, or how it relates to the other migros tools.

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