list_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does provide useful non-obvious context: the inventory is DB-authoritative and annotated with live Caddy state, and models intentionally show route: null because they are loopback-only. It does not discuss permissions, freshness or pagination behavior, but for a list operation this is a strong disclosure.

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 purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the second sentence adds only non-obvious detail about route: null and live-table annotations. There is no filler or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple, with two optional paging parameters fully documented in the schema, and the description explains the key output nuance around route: null. However, with no output schema, the description should do more to explain the returned row shape beyond saying each row carries a live-table annotation.

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 limit and cursor are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level information beyond what the schema provides, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: it lists the DB-authoritative route inventory annotated with live Caddy state. That is materially more informative than the tool name alone, and the note about models appearing with route: null adds concrete scope. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from the sibling list_ai_routes, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Use is implied by the phrase 'DB-authoritative route inventory' and the live Caddy annotation, so an agent can infer this is the tool for inspecting route state. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusion, and no naming of alternatives such as list_ai_routes.

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