apisix_get_route

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that the configuration is returned complete without trimming or truncation, which gives useful behavioral context about output fidelity. However, it does not describe errors, authentication, or pagination behavior.

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 sentence that immediately states the tool's purpose and a key behavioral guarantee. Every phrase adds value, with no wasted 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?

For a simple get tool with one parameter and rich annotations, the description is sufficient. It names the resource, specifies what is returned (complete configuration), and differentiates from list tools. It does not cover error cases, but given the openWorldHint, this is acceptable.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with the 'id' parameter described as '路由 ID' (route ID). The description does not provide additional parameter details beyond the schema, so it meets the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 uses the verb '查询' (query) and specifies the resource as '单个路由' (single route), clearly distinguishing from sibling list tools like apisix_list_routes and other get tools. The phrase '完整配置（不裁剪、不截断）' further specifies the scope and output property.

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 for retrieving a single route's full configuration, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this over apisix_list_routes or other get tools. No alternatives are mentioned, so the guidance is 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.