apisix_list_stream_routes

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the behavioral nuance that no get tool exists, which is useful context about how to retrieve stream route details. It does not describe pagination or response format, but annotations cover the safety aspects.

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 with two clauses, each providing distinct value: the primary purpose and a key usage caveat. No filler words or redundant information.

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's moderate complexity (4 params, all documented, no output schema), the description provides the crucial missing context that no get tool exists. This makes the tool self-explanatory for a list operation, though it could mention response format or pagination defaults if those were non-obvious.

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 four parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the schema carries the parameter semantics. The description adds no extra parameter guidance, leaving the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 states '查询流路由列表' (query stream route list), a specific verb and resource. It also distinguishes from siblings by mentioning the intentional absence of a get tool, clarifying this is the list operation for stream 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 phrase '有意不提供 get 工具' communicates that there is no get-tool alternative for stream routes, implying this list tool is the primary way to access them. This gives clear context but doesn't explicitly exclude cases where sibling list tools might be more appropriate.

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