list_system_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds only the HTTP method and endpoint, which are not behavioral traits. It does not describe what the response contains or any side effects, providing minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 extremely short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. It lacks essential information about what the tool returns and when to use it. The structure is minimal but not effectively front-loaded with useful 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?

Although an output schema exists and annotations cover safety, the description fails to explain the tool's purpose beyond 'Read System'. It does not clarify that it returns routes, nor does it distinguish from the similar sibling list_system_routes_duplicate. More context is needed for an agent to confidently invoke it.

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, so the schema is fully comprehensive (100% coverage). The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline of 4 is appropriate since there is nothing to add.

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 'Read System' is vague and does not specify that the tool returns the list of system routes. The HTTP endpoint is provided, but the description itself lacks a clear verb+resource statement. The tool name implies the purpose, but the description does not reinforce it.

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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the closely named sibling list_system_routes_duplicate. There is no mention of context, exclusions, or comparisons, leaving the agent without direction.

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