proofpoint_policy_list_routes

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'List' and phrase 'Shows how mail is routed' indicate a read-only operation, which is transparent. However, it does not mention pagination behavior (though page/per_page are in the schema) or what data is returned for each route, leaving some gaps.

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 two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action verb 'List' and the resource. Every sentence contributes meaning: the first states the direct action, and the second clarifies the broader purpose. There is no redundant or extraneous text.

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 list tool with only pagination parameters, the description adequately conveys the core functionality and purpose. However, since there is no output schema, it would be beneficial to mention what information is included in the returned routes (e.g., route names, destinations). The lack of such details makes the description minimally sufficient but not fully complete.

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%, with both 'page' and 'per_page' already described in the input schema. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema fully documents the parameters.

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's function with a specific verb and resource: 'List email routing rules/routes.' It adds a clarifying second sentence, 'Shows how mail is routed based on policy configuration,' which provides context beyond the tool's name. It is distinguishable from sibling tool 'proofpoint_policy_list' by focusing on routes.

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 usage when one needs to view email routing rules, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'proofpoint_policy_list' or 'proofpoint_policy_get.' No exclusions or comparisons to sibling tools are provided, so the guidance remains implicit rather than explicit.

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