get_routing_patterns

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Get' which implies a read operation, but does not confirm read-only safety, return value structure, pagination behavior, or any potential side effects. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation safety signals.

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 object. There is zero wasted 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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides minimal context about what is returned (only 'with confidence scores') and nothing about ordering, defaults, or how the parameters interact. For a simple list/read tool with only two optional numeric parameters, this may be adequate, but it still leaves room for more detail.

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 100%, with both limit and min_confidence clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no information about these parameters, so it neither helps nor hinders; the baseline of 3 is appropriate given full schema coverage.

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 the action (get) and the resource (learned routing patterns) and includes the key detail of confidence scores. It is clear but does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like find_similar_routing_patterns or search_patterns, though the word 'learned' hints at a distinction.

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 such as store_routing_pattern or find_similar_routing_patterns. It does not mention use cases, exclusions, or relationships to other routing-pattern tools.

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