Check sub-pages survive a refresh

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool opens links, detects SPA refresh failures, names host-specific fixes, and validates 404 behavior. This is meaningful beyond what the schema shows, though it does not detail output formatting or side effects.

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 dense but efficient, front-loading the core purpose in the opening sentence and adding valuable capabilities without fluff. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 two-parameter tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description gives enough context for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. It could more explicitly state what output format to expect, but the behavioral purpose is well covered.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which already explains URL, live/preview/local usage, and optional extra paths for client-rendered apps.

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 uses specific verbs and objects: it opens internal links directly, catches single-page-app 404s, names host-specific fixes, and checks that made-up URLs return real 404s. This clearly distinguishes check_routes from generic link/preview-related sibling tools.

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 strong context: use this when needing to verify that internal routes survive refresh, bookmarks, or shared links, especially for SPAs. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use scenarios, but the use case is clear enough.

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