Tenpace Review Router

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

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations by explicitly stating idempotency ('Idempotently create or reconcile') and the reconcile semantics, which reveals that the tool may adjust an existing route rather than only creating. The annotations already mark idempotentHint=true, so the extra detail about 'reconcile' enhances transparency without contradicting structured data.

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 combines action, prerequisites, and idempotency. Every word contributes meaningful context with no redundancy, earning a top score for conciseness.

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 (2 required params, no output schema, strong annotations), the description adequately covers its purpose and prerequisites. It does not mention error conditions or response details, but these are often unnecessary for a setup tool when the schema and annotations provide sufficient context. A slightly more explicit mention of what 'apply' results in could push it to a 5.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters with clear descriptions ('Setup-session ID' and 'Secret returned at creation'). The description does not add parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 ('Idempotently create or reconcile') and the resource ('the route'), with specific prerequisites that frame the tool's scope. It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'start_review_router_setup' by referencing the post-setup phase, making the purpose 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 description provides clear context for when to use the tool: 'after the person completing setup signed in, claimed the current intent, and connected both providers.' It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the prerequisites imply a natural workflow order, which is a clear usage guideline.

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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, which cover the safety profile. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by specifying that the tool returns 'structured progress' and 'the next required human action', which is valuable given there is no output schema. This does not contradict 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?

The description is a single clear sentence that fully conveys the tool's purpose without wasted words. It is front-loaded with the verb and salient detail about what the read returns.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (progress and next human action), which is sufficient for a status-read tool. The two required parameters are well-documented in the schema, and the tool's simplicity does not demand more in the description.

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 100% description coverage for both parameters (setupId and agentToken), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific detail, but given the high schema coverage, the 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 uses the specific verb 'Read' to define the action, and specifies the resource as 'structured progress and the next required human action', which clearly indicates a status/read operation. It distinguishes from sibling tools that apply, preview, send, or start the setup, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.

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 tool is used to check progress and next steps after starting a setup, but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus the sibling tools. There are no stated exclusions or alternative recommendations, so the usage context is only implicit.

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 establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds value by specifying exactly what content is read (current intent version and locked setup plan), which goes beyond the generic annotation hints and clarifies the tool's role as a preview step.

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, front-loaded with the primary action, and contains no redundant information. It is perfectly scoped for the tool's purpose.

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 preview tool with 2 parameters and strong annotations, the description is adequate. It captures the workflow position and core function, though it does not describe the return format—but this is acceptable given the lack of an output schema and the straightforward nature of the 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?

Both parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add any additional meaning to the parameters beyond the schema, which already clearly describes them as setup-session ID and secret token.

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 action ('Read') and specific resources ('current intent version and locked setup plan'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like apply, start, or get status. It also adds workflow context ('before asking a human to continue'), which clarifies its role in the setup process.

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 an explicit trigger for when to use this tool, giving clear usage context. However, it does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, so it falls short of a full when/when-not comparison.

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 provide idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds crucial context that this sends a 'real' Slack message through production, making the side effect explicit. It also restates idempotency in prose, reinforcing safe retry behavior. It does not disclose potential errors or rate limits, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 conveys purpose, timing, idempotency, and the production delivery path with no wasted words. Every element earns its place.

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 only two well-documented parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it says what happens, when to call it, and that it is idempotent. It could have explicitly mentioned preview alternatives or side-effect prerequisites, but the current content is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% and parameter descriptions ('Setup-session ID', 'Secret returned at creation') are clear. The tool description itself does not add parameter-specific meaning, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate because the schema already carries the semantic weight.

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 verb 'send' and resource 'real Slack setup message through the production delivery path,' distinguishing it from preview-like siblings. It also includes a key sequencing cue ('After route application') that adds specific scope.

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 'After route application' indicates when this tool should be used, and 'real Slack setup message through the production delivery path' implies it is for actual delivery rather than preview. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives like preview_review_router_setup or state when not to use 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?

The annotations already mark the operation as idempotent and non-destructive, and the description adds context about the 'inert' plan and the browser sign-in URL. This goes beyond the annotations by clarifying that no immediate action is taken on GitHub/Slack, which is useful behavioral detail.

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, well-structured sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and result, making it instantly scannable for 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?

Given the tool's complexity (6 parameters) and the absence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the key return value (one URL) and the inert nature of the setup. It doesn't explain downstream steps or how the plan is stored, but sibling tools and annotations fill these gaps, making it 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 description provides no parameter information, and with schema coverage at only 50%, parameters like 'preset', 'idempotencyKey', and 'reviewerMentions' lack descriptions in both the schema and the tool description. The enums and defaults help slightly, but the agent gets no guidance on how to choose appropriate values.

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 siblings like apply_review_router_setup and preview_review_router_setup by focusing on the initial setup step.

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 use for initiating setup via the word 'create' and 'inert,' but it doesn't explicitly explain when to prefer this over apply or get status. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer the intended workflow, though no direct alternatives are named.

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