chap.task.route

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool records a route_decision artefact and what that artefact names, which signals a side-effecting operation. However, it omits permissions, reversibility, and response behavior, though some error conditions are documented in the candidates schema.

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, compact sentence with no filler. It front-loads the core action and then specifies the artefact contents, making it quick for an agent to parse and apply.

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 plus the detailed schema cover the basic call, but the return value is unspecified and there is no output schema. The relationship between the 'policy' mentioned in the description and the actual input parameters is unclear, and there is no guidance on when to prefer this tool over sibling routing-related tools.

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%, so all four parameters are already well documented. The description adds context about candidates being alternatives and a policy being recorded, but it does not explain parameter-specific syntax beyond the schema. The mention of 'policy' is not mapped to any input parameter, which introduces slight ambiguity.

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 states a specific action ('Choose an assignee') and a concrete output ('record a route_decision artefact naming...'), clearly identifying the resource and distinguishing it from generic task operations. It does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like chap.task.update or chap.handoff.propose, so it falls just short of a 5.

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 use case—assigning a task from a candidate list—but provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It does not mention alternatives such as chap.handoff.propose or chap.task.update, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the operation name and schema.

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