get_routes_metadata

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool returns compressed JSON, incurs large token cost, and lists output fields. No destructive behavior is mentioned, which is appropriate for a read-only operation.

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, each serving a distinct purpose: specifying output and providing usage guidance. No unnecessary words.

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?

The description explains output content and usage scenario. For a tool with no parameters and no output schema, it is mostly complete but could add details on decompression or exact JSON structure.

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?

With no parameters and 100% schema coverage, the description adds significant meaning by explaining the tool's purpose and output content (compressed JSON with specific fields).

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 specifies the verb '返回' (return) and resource '所有路由的完整元数据' (complete metadata of all routes), listing included fields. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like list_routes and get_route_detail.

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?

The description states when to use: only when needing complete field definitions at once, citing high token cost. It implies alternatives (lighter tools) but does not explicitly name them.

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