gograph_routes

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true), the description adds that it is read-only with no side effects and discloses a key limitation about nested route-group prefixes being lost at the AST level.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph with clear sections: purpose, prerequisite, limitation, usage guidance, and return info. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Given no output schema, the description explains the return value as a structured table of triples and notes when it is empty. It covers the tool's behavior, prerequisites, limitations, and usage guidance thoroughly. Minor lack of detail on the exact format of the table, but still very complete.

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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 parameters is 4, and the description appropriately focuses on behavior and output.

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 clearly states the tool lists all HTTP routes with methods, patterns, and handler names. It distinguishes from sibling gograph_endpoint by specifying that it provides the complete API surface.

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?

Explicitly provides when to use (get API surface before deep-dive) and when not to use (for call chain analysis, use gograph_endpoint). Also specifies prerequisite: run 'gograph build .' first.

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