route_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden and does not meet it. It never says whether routing only selects a candidate or also executes it, how ambiguity or multiple matches are handled, or whether the match is authoritative — all critical for a dispatcher-style 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?

A single front-loaded clause with zero padding; every word earns its place. It is appropriately sized, though its brevity is achieved by omitting rather than compressing.

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 tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the response contract, and it does not: an agent cannot tell whether it receives a workflow ID, a name, a ranked list, or a confidence score. That gap matters greatly when the very next step is a decision to call run_workflow.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'scenario' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the phrase 'free-text', implying unconstrained natural language rather than an ID or slug, but offers no guidance on length, phrasing, or what makes a matchable scenario.

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 ('Resolve') and the transformation ('free-text scenario' -> 'matching workflow or skill'), which is far more than a restatement of the name. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings such as run_workflow or search_by_tags, so an agent cannot tell from this text alone how routing differs from searching or executing.

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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusion (

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