list_routing_attributes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds details on pagination (default limit=100, cursor behavior, caching), plan-gating, and degrades to upstream_error. No contradictions.

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?

Very concise, uses bullet points effectively, front-loads the main purpose. Every sentence is informative without redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, description explains return format (skeletons) and options to get full objects (verbose). Covers plan-gating, pagination, and error scenarios. Complete for a list tool with good annotations.

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%, so baseline 3. Description adds valuable context for each parameter (e.g., limit explains caching, cursor explains staleness, fields whitelist, filter supported keys, refresh bypasses cache). This goes beyond schema.

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 returns skill-based-routing attribute definitions as paginated skeletons. It specifies the fields (id, name, updated_at) and distinguishes from sibling tools list_routing_attribute_values and list_skills.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (for attribute definitions), when not (for values inside an attribute, use list_routing_attribute_values; for legacy skills, use list_skills). Also mentions plan-gating and potential error conditions.

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