Route Control Destination

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, signaling a non-destructive operation. The description adds the 'route' action which is consistent but does not elaborate on side effects, authorization needs, or output behavior. With annotations present, the description is adequate but not enriched.

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 that conveys the core function without unnecessary words. It could benefit from slightly more structure but 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?

With five parameters, zero schema coverage, and no output schema, the description fails to provide sufficient context for correct tool invocation. Critical details like which parameter selects the destination are missing.

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 information about any of the five parameters (failure_class, detectability, recurrence, harm, scope). This leaves the agent unable to determine parameter usage or how they map to destinations.

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's action ('route') and resource ('failure class'), listing specific destinations (docs, Skill, quality guard, QA harness, contract prevention). This distinguishes it from siblings like evaluate_control_candidate or check_ssot_links.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool vs alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The agent must infer usage context from the name and description alone.

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