PREFLIGHT

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a query operation ('ask') and reveals the nature of results (route options), but does not explicitly state whether it visits the URL, makes network requests, or handles errors. It adds some context with 'cheapest likely' but is not deeply transparent.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the usage condition ('Before visiting a URL'), states the action ('ask PREFLIGHT'), and lists the possible outcomes. No unnecessary words or repetition, making it highly efficient.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential aspects: when to use, what it does, and the possible results. It lacks elaboration on what each route outcome implies or how to interpret the response, but it is sufficient for a basic preflight query tool.

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 describes the sole parameter 'url' completely as 'Absolute http/https URL to evaluate', achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add additional semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline of 3 is 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 clearly states the tool's function: to ask PREFLIGHT for the cheapest likely machine route before visiting a URL. It enumerates the specific possible outputs (HTTP, BROWSER, MACHINE_ENDPOINT, AVOID), which distinctly differentiates it from the sibling tool preflight_feedback.

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?

Provides a clear usage context ('Before visiting a URL'), telling the agent when to invoke this tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or explicitly compare it with preflight_feedback, lacking explicit exclusion criteria.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits, but it only states the purpose. It does not mention side effects, data storage, permission requirements, or what happens on success/failure, making the tool's behavior opaque.

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 directly conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and easy to parse.

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 feedback-reporting tool, the description gives the core purpose but omits details like expected response, error behavior, and the meaning of specific enum values (e.g., AVOID). The lack of an output schema increases the need for such context, but the description remains minimal.

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 0% description coverage, and the description provides no guidance on how to fill parameters like url, route, outcome, or latencyMs. The schema's enums give some meaning, but the description fails to compensate for the low 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 a specific verb 'Report' and identifies the resource 'PREFLIGHT route', clearly stating the tool's role. It distinguishes from sibling preflight_check by focusing on feedback rather than the check itself.

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 the tool is used after a preflight check to report the outcome, providing context for when to use it. However, it does not explicitly name the sibling tool or state exclusions, leaving some ambiguity about alternatives.

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