list_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so safety is covered; the description adds useful behavior beyond that by disclosing what information comes back (live health, totals, current and average rates) and that the scope is limited to this server's routes. It does not mention ordering, volume/pagination, or refresh semantics for 'live' metrics, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

Two sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and why it is useful, the second routes to the correct alternatives. No filler or restated metadata.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the four reported aspects. Combined with the readOnly annotation and the explicit sibling routing, an agent has everything needed to choose and call it.

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 baseline there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and no schema gap to compensate for. The description doesn't need to add parameter meaning.

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?

Names a specific verb (list) and resource (routes) plus the scope 'started by this server', and enumerates the reported fields (connection health, messages moved, message rate, average rate). It explicitly separates itself from route_status and bridge_status, both present as siblings.

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use `route_status` when you need one route's full detail, and `bridge_status` when you need routes from other mq-bridge processes. Both alternatives are named with the condition that selects them, leaving nothing to inference.

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