smart_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that the tool both detects and connects (a mutation), but lacks details on failure modes, permissions required, or what happens if detection fails. The disclosure is adequate but not rich.

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, concise sentence of 12 words with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

Given the simple tool with one parameter and no output schema or annotations, the description covers the main use case. However, it lacks information about edge cases (e.g., multiple environment matches, detection failure) and does not clarify how this tool differs from route_to_environment. Still, it is mostly complete for its simplicity.

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 only parameter, issue_description, is described in the schema as 'Description of the customer issue.' The tool description adds that it is used to 'automatically detect the right environment,' which provides context beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline is 3, and the description adds value, so a 4 is warranted.

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 clearly states that the tool detects the right environment from an issue description and connects to it, using specific verbs (detect and connect) and a specific resource (environment). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like connect_environment (which just connects) and detect_environment (which just detects).

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 that this tool should be used when the environment is unknown and needs to be inferred from the issue, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. With siblings like connect_environment and detect_environment, explicit guidance would be beneficial.

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