os_mcp_route_query

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, covering safety and idempotency. The description adds no extra behavioral context beyond the classification/recommendation action. It doesn't disclose the format of recommendations or any side effects; however, the output schema is present (though not shown), so some return details are handled externally. With annotations, the score is moderate; it doesn't contradict them, but doesn't add much beyond the basic action.

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 one short sentence, with no wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and object. It is appropriately minimal for a routing tool, and the sentence structure is clear and efficient. No redundancy.

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?

The tool is a simple router with a single required parameter and an output schema (not shown but present). The description covers the core purpose. However, given the vast sibling list, an agent might benefit from knowing what kind of output to expect (e.g., a tool name, a confidence score) or that it should be used as a first step. The output schema likely covers return details, so the description is adequate but not rich. Missing guidance on how the recommendation is structured.

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%, meaning the schema provides no descriptions for parameters. The description mentions 'query' in the purpose, implying the main parameter is the query to classify. This provides some semantic guidance beyond the raw schema, which only shows types. For a tool with only two parameters (tool and query), the description adds enough context to understand that 'query' is the input to be routed.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Classify a query and recommend the right tool/workflow.' This is a specific verb ('classify', 'recommend'), and it names the resource ('a query', 'right tool/workflow'). It is clear enough to distinguish it from sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly name which siblings it competes with. However, the name 'os_mcp_route_query' already hints at routing, so the description confirms it.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that it should be used before deciding on another tool, nor does it state any exclusions. Given the huge sibling list, an agent might not know when to call this router versus directly calling a tool. The description implies usage by its purpose, but explicit conditions are missing.

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