Check whether a model should hand off to Claude for a given task category. Determines if a specific model should route tasks to Claude based on the category.
Check whether a model should hand off to Claude for a task category.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model | Yes | ||
| task_category | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v5.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only check but never states this, nor does it disclose side effects, required permissions, or what the decision output looks like. For a query tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.
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?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized, though brevity here edges toward under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, but with no annotations, 0% parameter coverage, and no usage guidance, the definition is incomplete for a two-required-parameter tool. An agent lacks enough to call it confidently.
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 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never explains what 'model' values are acceptable (model ID? name?) or what 'task_category' enumerates, leaving both parameters semantically opaque.
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 and resource: checking whether a model should hand off to Claude for a task category. It is clear about the operation. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling 'identify_handoff_triggers', leaving ambiguity about which to use.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool, when not to, or how it relates to the sibling 'identify_handoff_triggers' or other bloom_* tools. The agent must infer the usage context entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.