Kernel Route

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, which the description does not contradict. However, the description lists modes (route, stage, lane, list, status, surface_drift) that conflict with the schema enum (route, kernel, triage, delegate, status, metabolize), misleading the agent. No details on side effects, permissions, or other behaviors beyond 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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with purpose. However, the mode list is inaccurate and the second sentence could be clearer. No wasted sentences, but the inaccuracy reduces efficiency.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain how to use the 10 parameters or what the modes actually do. Given the tool's complexity (10 params, many nullable) and zero schema coverage, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 has 10 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description only vaguely mentions modes without matching the schema's enum. It does not explain the purpose of target, task, session_id, or other parameters. The description fails to add meaning beyond the parameter names.

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 purpose: 'Route intent to the correct tool or federation organ.' It uses a specific verb ('Route') and resource ('intent'), and implicitly distinguishes from siblings like arif_triage and arif_route by focusing on delegation and routing when unsure.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use when unsure which tool to call next or how to delegate,' providing clear context for when to use the tool. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or named alternatives beyond listing sibling tools.

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