list_routes

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose the shape of each returned record, which is genuinely useful for a read operation, but says nothing about whether results are paginated, whether generated/ignored routes are excluded, or whether a build/dev server must be running.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, with the returned-field inventory front-loaded. The enumeration is long but each item is informative rather than redundant, so it earns its space.

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 simple single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description compensates by listing the fields each route carries. The main gap is the absence of any note on scale, filtering behavior beyond the schema, or relationship to sibling route tools.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single `pattern` parameter is documented in-schema as a substring filter on path or file. The description adds no further semantics about the filter, so the baseline of 3 applies — the schema does the work 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 opens with a specific verb+resource ("List all page routes") and enumerates what each entry contains (resolved URL paths, source files, params, middleware, layouts, children). The word "page" implicitly separates it from list_server_routes, but no sibling is named outright, so full differentiation is left to inference.

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?

"Use this to understand the page/routing surface of the project" gives a usage context but no exclusions. An agent is not told when to prefer get_route for a single route, list_server_routes for API endpoints, or inspect_route_meta for route metadata — all of which sit nearby and overlap in scope.

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