Get Largest Routes

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It communicates that this is a ranking/read operation on loaded build data and that it focuses on emitted chunk bytes, but it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, output shape, sorting direction, or error conditions. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

One sentence with no filler; the key scoping qualifiers ('loaded Next.js build', 'user-facing routes', 'emitted chunk bytes') are all included. It is efficiently front-loaded.

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 read-ranked listing, the description plus a 100%-covered schema is nearly enough. Yet with no output schema and no annotations, the agent lacks explicit guidance on the result format or when to choose this tool over siblings like get_shared_chunks, leaving a small but real gap.

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?

All parameters are fully described in the schema (100% coverage), so the description need not add much. It adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema; the schema already explains limit defaults and buildId provenance.

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?

Clearly states the action (rank), the object (heaviest user-facing routes in a Next.js build), and the criterion (emitted chunk bytes). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like compare_builds, but the specific resource and measurement make the function unambiguous.

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 implies the tool operates on an already-loaded build, and the schema's buildId note ('Build ID returned from load_build_stats. Omit to list loaded builds') hints at the workflow. However, the description itself gives no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to the sibling tools.

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