mystorax_routing_guide

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a pure fetch/read operation on doctrine, which is behaviorally transparent about it being informational. It doesn't detail response format, caching, or side effects, but the operation is simple enough that this is acceptable.

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?

Two sentences, both earning their place. The first states the tool's function with content enumeration; the second gives actionable usage guidance. It's front-loaded and efficient. Minor deduction for not describing return shape, but for a parameterless fetch tool this is proportionate.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description adequately covers what the tool does and when to call it. The tool appears to be a reference/doctrine retrieval mechanism with no parameters, so complexity is low. The description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it correctly, though it doesn't detail what the returned doctrine looks like.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the parameter semantics baseline is 4. The description and schema are fully aligned with no parameters to document. The content enumeration ('authors, Hands, Science OS, refusals') gives the agent a preview of what the returned doctrine covers, which is helpful context for a parameterless tool.

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 verb+resource: 'Fetch MystoraX routing doctrine (authors, Hands, Science OS, refusals).' It names concrete content areas. It doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings, but the enumerated content types give reasonable specificity.

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 line 'Call this before inventing routes' provides explicit usage timing guidance, telling the agent this must precede route invention. However, it doesn't contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. The instruction is clear but not exclusionary toward siblings.

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