list_teamnet_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the listing action and does not mention read-only safety, pagination, output shape, rate limits, or other behavioral traits. 'List' implies a read operation, but nothing is explicitly disclosed.

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 sentence with no filler or redundancy. It is concise and efficiently states the core purpose, though the brevity leaves out useful behavioral and contextual details.

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 simple with only one parameter and the schema fully documents that parameter. However, there is no output schema and no annotations, so the description would need to explain return values, pagination, or route object contents to be fully complete; it does not.

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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter account_id is already described in the schema. The description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond rephrasing 'for an account', so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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'), a resource ('team network routes'), and an account scope, making the basic action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish this from sibling tools like list_teamnet_virtual_networks or list_magic_transit_routes, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

No guidance is provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_teamnet_virtual_networks or get_teamnet_virtual_network. 'For an account' implies the account_id parameter but gives no context about exclusions, prerequisites, or preferred scenarios.

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