list_system_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. The description merely echoes this with 'Read' and the GET verb, adding no additional behavioral context such as response format, pagination, authorization, or potential caveats.

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 very short, but the opening 'Read System.' is largely redundant with the tool name and adds little value. The endpoint line is useful, but the overall structure does not efficiently communicate the tool's purpose.

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?

With zero parameters, an output schema, and strong annotations, the tool is relatively simple to invoke correctly. However, the description does not explain what system routes are or how this tool differs from the similar sibling, leaving a noticeable gap for an agent deciding which tool to select.

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?

There are zero parameters and 100% schema description coverage, so there are no parameter semantics to clarify. The description appropriately omits parameter information.

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 says 'Read System.' and provides the endpoint GET /api/v1/system/routes, which implies retrieving system routes. However, it never explicitly names the resource as routes or explains what 'routes' means, and it does not distinguish this tool from the sibling list_system_routes_duplicate.

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?

There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives like list_system_routes_duplicate, list_root, or list_system_status. The agent must infer usage solely from the name and endpoint.

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