typesafe_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive. The description adds that it 'never performs the route' and returns a 'confidence-aware proceed/review recommendation,' which provides concrete behavioral context beyond the annotations. This is consistent and adds value, though it does not cover edge cases like error handling or side effects.

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 extremely concise, two sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded ('Choose one route'), and the key behavioral caveat ('never performs the route') is included. Every sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and limitations.

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 tool has 6 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema. The description gives a high-level overview but does not detail the output structure beyond mentioning a route and a recommendation. While the schema covers parameters well, the lack of output schema and minimal description of return format leaves some ambiguity. The description is sufficient for basic usage but not fully comprehensive.

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 83%, so most parameters are already documented. The description adds minimal parameter context, such as 'closed set' for routes and the notion that routes are not executed, which helps interpret the routes parameter. However, it does not explain the role of confidence_threshold, review_route, or comparison_model beyond what the schema provides. This is adequate given high coverage.

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's action ('Choose one route'), the resource ('from a closed set'), and explicitly notes it never performs the route. This distinguishes it from siblings like typesafe_rank or typesafe_extract, which have different purposes. The verb and resource are specific and 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 implies the tool is for selecting among predefined routes and explicitly states it never performs the route, which hints at non-execution usage. However, it does not name any sibling tools or provide explicit when-to-use vs when-not-to-use guidance. The context is clear but not fully developed.

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