codelattice_workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the safety burden is low. The description adds the routing/orchestration role and first-use behavior beyond the annotations, but it does not disclose what the tool returns, how execution via the execute parameter behaves, or how modes resolve. There is no contradiction with annotations.

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 three short sentences with no filler. It front-loads the tool's identity and purpose, then gives actionable routing guidance. Every sentence earns its place.

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 17-mode router with no output schema, the description covers only a subset of modes and says nothing about execution behavior or response shape. The rich schema and annotations compensate significantly, so it is not inadequate, but there are clear gaps for the remaining workflow modes.

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 about 88%, and the mode parameter already explains several workflow scenarios. The description itself adds no parameter-level detail, so it earns the baseline 3 for relying on a well-covered schema rather than compensating with additional semantics.

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 identifies a specific role and resource: 'AI intent router and orchestration layer.' It also distinguishes itself from other CodeLattice tools by positioning itself as the first-stop entry point when the agent is unsure which tool to call, so there is no ambiguity about what this tool is for.

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?

It gives explicit usage context: 'Use this FIRST when unsure which CodeLattice tool or root to call' and routes specific intents to ask, explore, diagnose_issue, and before_edit. It even gives a when-not condition for before_edit, though it does not name sibling tools as explicit alternatives or cover all 17 modes.

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