Recommend Routing

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

Annotations already declare idempotentHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds behavioral context about the heuristic patterns and the apply flag writing to config, but does not contradict annotations. It lacks details on destruction or side effects beyond the config write, but the idempotent nature mitigates concerns.

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 sentences, each carrying essential information: main action, pattern logic, and apply behavior. It is front-loaded and concise, with no filler or redundancy. 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?

Given the moderate complexity, 100% schema coverage, and presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's behavior: heuristic, default action, and persistence option. It could mention that omitting server_name applies to all servers, but this is in the schema. Overall, it is sufficiently complete for correct invocation.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions, so schema_description_coverage is 100%. The description reinforces the optionality of server_name and the effect of apply=true, but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 applies the X1 routing heuristic to servers, classifying them as 'passthrough' or 'execute_code'. It uses a specific verb and resource ('Apply X1 routing heuristic to one or all configured servers') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like execute_code and passthrough_call by focusing on routing recommendations.

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 implies usage for evaluating routing between passthrough and execute_code, and provides a conditional logic based on server names. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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