list_routes

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe, non-mutating operation, so the bar is lower. The description adds useful content context (connection health, message totals, current and average rates), but discloses nothing about freshness of the live metrics, whether routes from other servers are excluded, or any rate/pagination 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?

A single front-loaded sentence with a clear verb-resource opening and no redundant or filler content. Every clause adds information about what is returned.

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 no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the response, and it does so by naming the four metric families returned. It is nearly complete for a zero-parameter read-only tool, though it omits whether results are paginated or scoped beyond the implied current server.

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 per the rubric the baseline is 4 and there is no parameter semantics for the description to compensate for. The schema is empty and fully self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('List the routes') plus a scope qualifier ('started by this server'), and enumerates the returned metrics. It never names or contrasts with the closely related sibling route_status, so an agent must infer the distinction between listing all routes and querying one route's status.

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 when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as route_status, wait_route, or route_messages. The enumeration use case is only weakly implied by the verb 'List'; nothing tells the agent when this is preferable to the sibling status tools.

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