Get routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It explicitly reveals a read-only nature ('Return') and specifies the exact types of route nodes included and the output fields, which is useful context. However, it does not discuss edge cases or potential errors, but for a simple analysis tool, the description is adequately transparent.

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 includes all essential details: the scope ('every route node'), the specific node types, and the output fields. No unnecessary words or redundancy.

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 (one parameter, no output schema), the description adequately explains the return value. It is missing only comparative guidance on when to choose this over siblings, but for a basic route enumeration tool, the description is complete enough.

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 already documents the single 'root' parameter with 100% coverage, so the description adds no additional parameter semantics. With schema coverage that high, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate even without parameter details in the description.

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 states that the tool returns every route node, specifically enumerating the node types (+page/+layout/+error) and the information provided (display label and direct child components). This specific verb and resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_graph, which likely returns a broader graph structure.

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 implies the tool is for enumerating route nodes with labels and children, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus siblings like get_graph or get_component, nor does it mention alternatives or exclusions. The usage context is clear but not comparative.

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