list_system_routes_duplicate

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description merely says "Read System." and provides the endpoint, adding no behavioral context beyond the annotations. It does not contradict the annotations, but it also does not enrich them.

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 short and includes the exact endpoint, which is mildly useful. However, "Read System." is filler that repeats the obvious and does not earn its place. It is under-specified rather than efficiently concise.

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?

For a low-complexity read tool, the description still fails to state what the tool returns or how it differs from list_system_routes. The output schema exists, but the agent still lacks enough context to know when this tool is relevant. The description is not complete enough for correct tool selection.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty input schema with 100% coverage, so there are no parameter semantics the description needs to explain. The baseline for a zero-parameter tool applies here.

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 only "Read System." which is too generic to indicate what the tool actually does. It does not mention routes or duplicates, and does nothing to distinguish this tool from near-sibling list_system_routes. The endpoint line is present but adds no semantic explanation of the operation.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling list_system_routes exists and is highly related, but the description never explains when the 'duplicate' variant should be chosen. No context or exclusions are provided.

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