artex_find_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the multi-term matching behavior ('Separate query terms with spaces, e.g. task control'), which is genuinely useful semantics, but says nothing about the result shape or how pagination behaves.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by the one piece of syntax guidance that actually matters. Nothing is wasted or buried.

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 search tool with no output schema and zero schema coverage, the description covers search intent and query phrasing but leaves the method filter and pagination semantics undefined. Adequate to invoke, not adequate to invoke precisely.

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 all four parameters (query, method, limit, offset) rely entirely on the description. The description explains query term syntax and hints at the searched fields, but never mentions method, limit, or offset — an agent must guess that method filters by HTTP verb and that limit/offset paginate.

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 names a specific verb (Search) and resource (Web operations/routes) and even lists the searchable fields: path, handler, notes. That is enough for an agent to recognize the tool, though no sibling is named or contrasted (siblings are auth/status/browser tools, so no direct overlap exists).

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 'Search Web operations by path, handler or notes' — an agent can infer this is the lookup tool for routes. There is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of an alternative, and no statement about whether this is the only way to inspect routes.

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