get_routing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so well: it explicitly declares 'Side effects: none' and documents a real edge case (unavailable routes returned as empty strings). It stops short of describing return structure beyond the label concept, but the key behavioral traits are disclosed.

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?

Four short lines, each earning its place: purpose first, then side effects, a concrete example, and edge-case behavior. Front-loaded and waste-free.

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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description supplies an example and edge-case behavior, which is sufficient to call it correctly. The main residual gap is the absence of any detail on the shape of the returned routing labels.

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 0%, so the integer track_index is undocumented in the schema. The example 'get_routing(0) reports the first track's routes' implies a 0-based track index, adding meaningful interpretation, but does not define valid range or behavior for out-of-range indices.

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 ('Read input and output routing labels') with a clear scope ('for one track'). No sibling tool handles routing, so it is naturally distinguishable, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with the many other get_* readers such as get_track_state or get_track_list.

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?

Usage is implied by the purpose and the example call, and the 'for one track' scope clarifies the granularity, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives to consult instead.

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