route_next_stage

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the choice is returned 'even when uncertain' (no confidence gating), that 'the returned client determines the worker kind', and the intended scope of one substantial stage. It omits auth, cost, or latency behavior, keeping it short of a 5.

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?

Front-loaded with the action, then the operating instructions, then the input requirement. Every sentence carries information, though the dense domain jargon ('Herdr stage', 'worker kind') adds some parsing cost.

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 no output schema, annotations, or param descriptions, the description supplies the missing return semantics ('the selected choice is returned', 'returned client determines the worker kind') and parameter interplay. The main gap is the absence of any sibling-differentiation or when-to-invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains the compare_providers default and its interaction with client, and it specifies what stage_summary should contain ('compact task, progress and acceptance summary'). Only the 1400-char bound is left to the schema.

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 a specific action ('pick the best-fitting worker model') on a specific resource ('one substantial Herdr stage') and names the catalog scope ('Claude and Codex'). It is clear what the tool does, though it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'advise_next_action'.

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 parameter-mode guidance ('Leave compare_providers=true and omit client', 'Pass client only with compare_providers=false'), which is strong. However, it offers no guidance on when to choose this tool over the sibling 'advise_next_action', which is the core of this dimension.

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