gograph_routes

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by explaining internal caching behavior (content-digest freshness, AST refreshing) and limitations (unresolved dynamic prefixes). It also reaffirms read-only and no side effects, matching the annotations.

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 well-structured with sections for usage and returns, but includes some technical jargon (CHA/SSA, precise_fallback) that may be unnecessary for typical users. It is slightly verbose but still focused.

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 the absence of parameters and output schema, the description covers the return format, intended use cases, and limitations. It provides sufficient context for an agent to decide when to use this tool.

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?

Since there are zero parameters, the baseline is 4. No parameter descriptions are needed, and the description correctly omits them.

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's function: listing all HTTP routes with methods, URL patterns, and handler names. It also distinguishes itself from gograph_endpoint, making the purpose specific and unambiguous.

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?

It explicitly states when to use (to get the complete API surface before diving into a specific route with gograph_endpoint) and when not to use (for full call chain analysis, which gograph_endpoint handles). This provides clear guidance for tool selection.

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