factoryCopilot

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 discloses that the tool routes questions and generates actionable answers, but it does not state whether it is read-only, what side effects it may have (e.g., invoking other tools), or how it handles ambiguous or unsupported questions. This lack of behavioral detail is a significant ambiguity for an orchestration tool.

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, concise and front-loaded with the key action ('routes user questions'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or unnecessary detail.

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 complex orchestration tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description gives only a high-level role. It does not specify the response format, error handling, or how routing occurs, which leaves the agent uncertain about the tool's full behavior. While adequate for a starting point, it lacks depth for a tool that likely coordinates multiple MCP calls.

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 describes the single 'question' parameter with a natural language prompt, and the schema description covers 100% of parameters. The tool description adds some domain context (factory status, capacity, machines, inventory, orders) but this is largely mirrored in the schema description. Therefore, it provides minimal additional meaning, warranting the baseline 3.

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 ('routes') and clearly identifies the tool as a natural language AI assistant that directs user questions to appropriate analytics and predictive tools. It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools (e.g., getInventory, predictMachineFailure) by positioning itself as the supervisor/orchestration layer.

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 when to use the tool: when a user has a natural language question about factory operations that needs to be routed to the right analytics or predictive tool. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it (e.g., for direct data retrieval, use specific sibling tools). This is a minor gap.

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