list_worker_routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The verb 'List' clearly indicates a read-only enumeration, which is useful. However, it does not mention pagination, ordering, response format, rate limits, or permissions, leaving some behavioral details undisclosed.

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 redundant phrasing. Every word contributes to identifying the operation and its scope, making it appropriately concise without being vacuous.

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 simplicity of the tool—one required parameter, no output schema, and a straightforward list operation—the description is nearly complete. It omits response details and pagination behavior, but an agent can determine how to invoke the tool correctly from the provided description and schema.

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 schema fully documents the only parameter, zone_id, with 'The zone ID', and the description's phrase 'for a zone' aligns naturally with that parameter. The description does not add extra detail about the format or origin of the zone ID, but it does not need to because schema coverage is 100%.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a resource ('Worker routes'), and a scope ('for a zone'), making the tool's core purpose clear. It does not explicitly differentiate Worker routes from sibling tools like list_workers or list_worker_services, but the resource name is distinctive enough to avoid major ambiguity.

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 phrase 'for a zone' implies this tool is appropriate when routes need to be enumerated for a specific zone, and the single required zone_id parameter reinforces that context. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor any exclusions or preconditions.

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