topology_routes

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It fully meets that burden: it discloses that no route registrations or call sites are parsed, that results are candidates rather than confirmations, that each candidate carries a confidence annotation, and that a clear 'no match'/disabled message will be returned. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with no structured 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 informative and mostly well-structured, opening with the core function and then bounded by scope limitations and result semantics. Some redundancy exists: the 'no route registration parsing' point is stated multiple times, and 'candidates, not confirmed routes' is also echoed in slightly different wording. Still, the key constraints are front-loaded and readable.

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 parameter-light, no-output-schema tool, the description covers the modeling intent, negative scope, result semantics, confidence annotations, and failure behavior. The main gap is that it does not describe the exact snapshot of the return value beyond candidates and message, which would matter more given that there is no output schema. Overall, though, an agent can call this tool with clear expectations.

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 the schema already fully documents `limit`, `framework`, and `path_prefix`. The description mainly restates what the schema provides, including the caveat that `path_prefix` is not a URL path filter. It adds no significant new meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 specifies what the tool does: it pattern-matches entry-point-shaped symbol names and signatures, with concrete examples across Go, Python, and Swift/Vapor. It also draws an explicit boundary by stating what it does NOT do — parse route registrations or resolve path-to-handler bindings. It does not name a sibling tool as a direct alternative, but the scope is concrete enough to be distinguishable.

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?

The description provides strong usage guidance: use this tool to find entry-point-shaped candidate functions, not to recover confirmed route bindings. It clarifies that results are unconfirmed candidates and that path_prefix is not a URL path filter. However, it does not explicitly point to an alternative sibling tool (e.g. a route-resolution or topology-search tool) for cases where the user needs actual parsed route mappings.

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