vk_get_routes_bd34e224b009

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does well: it discloses authentication requirements, that a request body is usually not needed, and the parameter naming conventions. It doesn't document response format or pagination, but that is acceptable for a simple GET list.

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?

Four compact sentences each carry distinct, useful information: purpose, endpoint, scope, request-body expectations, parameter handling, and authentication. There is no filler or 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?

For a zero-parameter GET operation with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers purpose, endpoint, token scope, authentication, request body, and parameter conventions. No critical operational detail appears missing.

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?

Input schema has zero properties, so the baseline is 4. The description adds value by explaining top-level parameter conventions and camelCase/snake_case aliases, which is more than the empty schema provides.

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?

Description uses a specific verb 'Get' with a clear resource 'all token api routes' and explicitly maps to the REST endpoint 'GET /routes'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by narrowing to token-based API routes, explicitly noting 'not a user login'.

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 clear context: it lists routes available with an API token, excludes user login usage, and notes that authentication is required. It doesn't name alternative tools, but the resource and auth scope make intended use obvious.

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