orchestrate

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 explaining behavior. It does not disclose whether the routing operation is async, mutating, validating, or what side effects occur per target value such as 'claude', 'copilot', 'other', or 'broadcast'.

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 with no redundant content. The main cost is undefined terminology like 'result envelope', but the structure itself is efficient and direct.

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 three required parameters, no annotations, and zero parameter descriptions, this description is too thin. An agent would not know what payload to provide, what the target options mean, or what a broadcast result envelope actually represents, making the tool under-specified for reliable invocation.

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 0%, and the description only lightly maps to the parameters via 'skill result' and 'target'. It does not explain what payload should contain, what skill_name refers to, or what each target value actually does, so it fails to compensate for the schema's missing parameter descriptions.

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, 'Route', and identifies both the resource ('one skill result') and the destination types ('agent target or broadcast result envelope'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like skill_run, though the phrase 'result envelope' is somewhat jargon-heavy and not defined.

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 gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool or when to prefer an alternative. It implies a post-skill routing step, but it does not mention prerequisites, relationships to siblings, or conditions for choosing one target type over another.

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