Tenpace Review Router

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the 'reconcile' behavior and the required preceding actions, which are not present in annotations. This gives useful behavioral context beyond the structured 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 entire description is a single, front-loaded sentence that leads with the main action ('Idempotently create or reconcile the route') and efficiently states conditions. No fluff or repetition.

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 tool with full schema coverage and clear annotations, the description is fairly complete. It states the purpose, preconditions, and reconciliatory behavior. It does not describe return values or failure modes, but no output schema exists and these are not essential given the annotations.

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%; both setupId and agentToken have descriptions and patterns. The tool description does not add parameter semantics, so the baseline score 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 action: 'create or reconcile the route'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and the phrase 'after the person completing setup signed in, claimed the current intent, and connected both providers' distinguishes this apply step from sibling tools like preview or get status.

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 provides clear preconditions for use ('after the person... signed in, claimed the current intent, and connected both providers'), implying this should be called only after those steps. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools, but the context given is sufficient for an agent to know when to invoke it.

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?

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'Read' aligns with these. It adds useful context that the output includes structured progress and the next required human action, going beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence states the tool's purpose without filler. It is appropriately minimal while conveying the core value of reading structured progress and the next action.

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 read-status tool with full schema coverage and read-only annotations, the description covers the purpose and the nature of the returned data. It doesn't document error conditions or prerequisites, but given the simplicity and annotations, it is sufficiently 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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters (setupId and agentToken) with patterns and descriptions, so with 100% schema coverage the description does not need to add parameter semantics. It adds no explicit parameter-specific context but is not deficient given the 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 a specific verb 'Read' and identifies the resource as 'review router setup status,' specifying that it returns 'structured progress and the next required human action.' It clearly separates this from sibling setup/apply/test tools by focusing on status retrieval.

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 this is used to check the current progress and required human action for a setup process, but it does not explicitly contrast it with sibling tools like start or apply, nor state when not to use it. The usage context is implied rather than clearly stated.

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?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds useful nuance by specifying the exact contents read ('current intent version' and 'locked setup plan'), confirming it is a pure inspection operation with no side effects. No contradictions.

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 sentence with no filler, front-loaded with the verb 'Read'. Every word earns its place, making it concise and scannable.

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 read-only operation with two parameters and no output schema, the description adequately conveys what the tool does, what it reads, and when to use it. It could mention the return format, but the simplicity and existing annotations make the description sufficiently 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?

Both parameters (setupId, agentToken) have descriptive schema entries with patterns, so schema coverage is 100%. The tool description adds no additional parameter-specific meaning, relying on the schema to document 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 specifies the verb 'Read' and the resource ('exact current intent version and locked setup plan'), clearly distinguishing it from siblings like apply_review_router_setup and get_review_router_setup_status. The action is concrete and unambiguous.

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 'before asking a human to continue' provides a clear contextual trigger for when to call this tool, implying it is a precursor to a human decision point. It does not explicitly name alternatives, but the context is strong enough to guide selection among siblings.

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?

Annotations already declare idempotency and non-destructive behavior. The description adds meaningful context by specifying 'idempotently send one real Slack setup message' and 'through the production delivery path', clarifying that this is a real production-side action rather than a dry run. No contradictions with annotations.

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, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the action, timing, and idempotency. No wasted 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?

For a tool with 2 simple parameters, no output schema, and good annotations, the description is complete: it states when to use it, what it does, and its production nature. Nothing essential is missing.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptive parameter names and patterns (setupId, agentToken). The description does not add additional semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score 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 sends one real Slack setup message through the production delivery path, with a specific verb ('send') and resource ('Slack setup message'). The phrase 'After route application' and the tool name 'test' distinguish it from sibling tools that preview, apply, or start the setup.

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 provides a clear contextual trigger: use it after applying a route to send a verification message. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the sequencing and 'real Slack setup message' imply it's for post-application verification rather than preview or creation.

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?

Annotations provide idempotentHint and non-readOnly, and the description adds the key context 'inert', clarifying that the creation is safe and makes no actual GitHub/Slack changes. It also mentions the single sign-in URL as an output. It does not discuss URL expiry or related edge cases, but adds value beyond the annotations.

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, tightly worded sentence that is front-loaded with the main action and output. No redundant information or filler.

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?

The description covers the core action and return URL, but for a 6-parameter setup tool with no output schema, it leaves important context unexplained: what the plan contains, prerequisites, and the next step (apply). It is minimally adequate but not comprehensive.

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 only 50%, with parameters like preset, idempotencyKey, and reviewerMentions lacking descriptions. The tool description does not compensate by explaining how these parameters influence the plan, so it adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema.

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 creates an inert GitHub-to-Slack setup plan and returns a browser sign-in URL. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like apply_review_router_setup and preview_review_router_setup by emphasizing it is a plan, not an applied setup.

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 conveys that this is the initial setup step for a person completing the setup, and 'inert' signals that no live changes occur. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use, so it lacks full explicit guidance.

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