Roteador de tarefas QA (agentes especializados)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool only returns which agent (toolset) to use, not performing the task itself. This is transparent for a simple routing tool, though it lacks details on decision criteria or potential ambiguity.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and usage hint, with no redundant content. Every word contributes to understanding.

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 simple router with one parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently explains the tool's purpose and usage. It does not need to detail return format (schema exists) or complex behavior, making it complete for this context.

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 input schema already provides a complete description of the single 'task' parameter with examples. The description merely restates that it receives a task description, adding no extra semantic value beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given 100% schema coverage.

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 function: 'Recebe uma descrição da tarefa e retorna qual agente (conjunto de ferramentas) deve ser usado.' This specifies the verb (receives and returns) and resource (task description and agent selection), distinguishing it from sibling tools that perform actual QA tasks.

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 includes 'Útil para encaminhar a ferramenta certa,' which implies using this tool when you need to route a task to the appropriate specialized agent. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or provide alternatives, so there is no exclusion criteria.

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