route_status

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

With only readOnlyHint=true in annotations, the description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond safety: it specifies which metrics are returned (connection health, completion, message count, current rate, average rate) and warns that the current rate decays to ~0 after a route stops moving data, which is crucial for interpreting results correctly. It does not cover auth or rate limits, but the added output semantics are valuable.

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 front-loaded with purpose and then efficiently details the returned metrics, followed by a single practical caveat. Every clause earns its place, especially since there is no output schema to convey return values elsewhere.

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 read-only status tool with one fully documented optional parameter, no output schema, and only a readOnlyHint annotation, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret the response. It covers scope, returned fields, and a key interpretation caveat, leaving no critical gaps.

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 coverage is 100%, and the single optional `name` parameter is fully documented in the schema ('omit to report every running route'). The description restates that omitting the name reports all routes but adds no new syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource ('Report the live status of one route ... or all routes') and enumerates the exact status fields, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like list_routes (listing) and stop_route/start_route (control). An agent can identify this as the read-only status-reporting tool without inspecting other schemas.

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 gives clear context for use: retrieve live status, either for one named route or all routes, and it includes interpretation guidance ('Quote the average for a finished job'). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclude when-not-to-use, so it falls short of full routing guidance.

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