get_reference_route

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, which covers the safety profile, and the description is consistent. However, the description adds little beyond that: it does not disclose what 'routing' returns (e.g., a single doc or list), how relevance is determined, or any rate limits/pagination behavior.

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 of 14 words, front-loaded with the verb 'Route'. It conveys the core concept without unnecessary words or repetition of schema details.

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 4 parameters, enums, no output schema, and many siblings, yet the description is a one-liner. It does not explain the return value, the role of the mode parameter, or why this tool should be chosen over get_reference. The description is too sparse for the tool's complexity.

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%, so the description must compensate. It mentions stage, topic, and natural-language query, which maps to the stage, topic, and query fields, but it completely omits the required 'mode' parameter and how to combine it with the other fields. The mapping is incomplete and leaves the agent guessing about modal logic.

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 'Route' and identifies 'reference docs' as the resource, clearly indicating the tool's function. It also names three routing dimensions (stage, topic, natural-language query), which helps distinguish it from siblings like get_reference that likely retrieve directly rather than route.

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 by listing routing modes (stage, topic, natural-language query), giving contextual signals. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools, leaving the differentiation to inference.

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