get_available_routing

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only states what the tool does, not potential error conditions, side effects (likely none), or performance implications. For a read operation, this is minimal but acceptable; however, it does not disclose non-obvious behaviors.

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 a single concise sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word is necessary; no redundancy or filler.

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?

Given the tool is simple (1 required param, output schema exists), the description covers the essential purpose. The output schema is present, so return value details need not be in the description. However, the description could mention that the output schema lists routing options.

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 0%, and the description does not explain the track_index parameter beyond its name. No additional meaning, valid ranges, or examples are provided. The parameter is required but its semantics are left to inference.

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 clearly states the tool retrieves all available input and output routing options for a track, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from sibling tools like set_track_routing (which sets routing) and get_track_routing_info (which likely returns current routing).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as get_track_routing_info or set_track_routing. Sibling tools exist for routing management, but no contextual hints are given.

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