compute_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It discloses the routing order and return envelope, but omits critical details: error handling (e.g., if all providers fail), authentication requirements, rate limits, or whether the operation is idempotent.

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 brief (two sentences) with no redundancy. It front-loads the key action and order. One minor improvement would be structuring return format separately, but overall it is efficient.

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 tool's role as a router with 3 parameters, no output schema, and a sibling tool (agent_dispatch) that may overlap, the description lacks completeness. It does not explain 'best available', what the Magma envelope is, or how the tool handles unavailability. Error scenarios and return value structure are absent.

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% with clear descriptions for all parameters. However, the description adds little value beyond the schema: it mentions 'query' and 'best available compute provider', but the agent parameter values (e.g., ahmad, forge) are not mapped to providers (Bedrock, Groq, Ollama), creating a semantic gap.

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 the tool routes a query to a compute provider with a specified fallback order (Bedrock → Groq → Ollama), and it specifies the return format (Magma envelope). This distinguishes it from siblings like ere_verify or proxy_register, which have different purposes.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., agent_dispatch). It does not mention prerequisites, when-not-to-use, or trade-offs, leaving the agent to infer usage context.

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