list_magic_transit_routes

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly indicates a read-only listing operation, which is the core behavior, but it adds no detail about pagination, response shape, or operational caveats. This is adequate but not rich.

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, front-loaded, no-waste sentence that states the action, resource, and scope without fluff. Every word earns its place.

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?

The tool is low-complexity: one required parameter, fully documented by the schema, and no nested objects or output schema. The description plus schema gives an agent enough to select and invoke it correctly. It stops short of a 5 because it omits any mention of pagination or what the returned list contains beyond the resource name.

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%, and the single parameter account_id is already described as 'The account ID.' The description's 'for an account' adds no substantive meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('Magic Transit static routes') with account scoping, making the tool's job immediately clear. It also distinguishes itself from nearby siblings like get_magic_transit_route and list_magic_transit_gre_tunnels by naming 'static routes' explicitly.

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 implies it should be used when you need a list of Magic Transit static routes for an account, but it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, which matters given the large number of sibling list and get tools.

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