route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a meaningful behavioral clarification by emphasizing the tool only suggests and does not execute, but it does not go deeper into how state or actions are processed.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and a key behavioral caveat. There is no fluff, though the extreme brevity contributes to the lack of parameter guidance.

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 four parameters, zero schema descriptions, and no guidance on state/action/instructions shape, the description is incomplete for reliable invocation. The output schema may help with returns, but the core input semantics are left undocumented.

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%, and the description provides no meaning for the four parameters, especially required state and actions. The phrase 'closed set' hints that actions is a finite set, but this is far too thin to help an agent construct valid inputs.

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 ('Choose') and resource ('next action from a closed set'), making the tool's core function clear. It also distinguishes itself from executers by stating it 'suggests an action; it does not execute it,' though it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling decision tools like evaluate or classify.

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: when a next action must be selected from a closed set. It also provides one exclusion ('does not execute it'), but it does not state when to prefer route over sibling tools or describe conditions where routing is inappropriate.

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