my_tools

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the return contents (triggers verbatim, stance, and a `report` track record) and gives a behavioral rule for relaying the report ('never as a verdict that their tool is worse'). It omits only mundane operational traits like auth or scoping, which are unlikely for a local list 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?

Front-loaded with the core action and scope, and every sentence adds useful routing or relay guidance. It is somewhat dense in the middle clauses, but no sentence is redundant.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description adequately explains both what is returned (triggers, stance, report) and how to use it. An agent has enough to call it correctly and interpret the result, though a hint about scoping or the report format could push it higher.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly adds no parameter detail because there is nothing to parameterize.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it lists the tools the USER declared as their own (`__own__:…` ids), and it details what each entry carries (triggers verbatim plus stance). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like update_my_tool, remove_my_tool, and declare_my_tool.

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?

Gives explicit call conditions: when the user asks what HyperRoute knows they have, or before updating/removing a tool so the correct id is used. It ties the read to the adjacent write/delete siblings, leaving little to inference.

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