route_guard

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It states that the tool 'detects' certain route problems, which implies a read-only analysis, but it does not explicitly state whether invocation has side effects, what it returns, or how results are presented. This is a notable gap for a tool with no annotation safety hints.

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 sentences with no filler or repetition. The first sentence establishes the scope and the second enumerates the precise detection categories. Every phrase contributes usable information to an agent.

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 zero-parameter tool, the description adequately states the purpose and detection targets. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it does not explain what output format or behavior to expect after invocation. An agent can decide to call it but cannot anticipate how to interpret the result.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to explain about parameter semantics. The description correctly avoids inventing parameter details. The baseline of 4 applies because the schema already fully covers the (empty) parameter surface.

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 names a specific resource, frontend↔backend route coherence, and lists three concrete detection categories: unused backend routes, nonexistent frontend targets, and sensitive routes without auth. This is clear and materially distinct from generic sibling names like 'guard' or 'check', though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from those siblings.

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 tool's purpose implies when to use it: to validate route coherence and surface route-related issues. However, it gives no explicit usage context, prerequisites, or guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings such as 'guard', 'check', or 'health'. The guidance is only implicit.

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