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

The description discloses that candidate routing improvements can be enabled live, that no candidate is currently active as of 2026-07-26, and that the tool currently behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx. It also clarifies there is no fallback and that it is a fully working router, which is valuable behavior beyond the idempotent/non-destructive 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 opens with the beta identity and then front-loads the current status, usage instruction, and safety caveat. It is slightly redundant in repeating 'same 5,801 tools, same arguments, same response shape' alongside 'use exactly like ask_pipeworx,' but every sentence carries useful context.

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 variant tool, the description is complete: it specifies the relationship to the stable router, the current active-candidate state, how to invoke it, and that the output shape matches ask_pipeworx. It relies on the sibling ask_pipeworx definition for deeper domain semantics, which is reasonable given the 'same responses' guarantee.

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 already documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases with 100% description coverage. The description only repeats that arguments are the same as ask_pipeworx, adding no new semantic detail about 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 clearly identifies the tool as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, sharing the same 5,801-tool routing surface, arguments, and response shape. It differentiates it from the stable ask_pipeworx router. However, it relies on the reader already understanding what 'ask_pipeworx' and 'universal router' do rather than stating the core behavior independently.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing, and says the results are compared against the stable router for merge decisions. It doesn't crisply state a when-not-to-use condition (e.g., 'prefer ask_pipeworx for stable production'), though 'experimental edge' clearly implies the risk.

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