hs4.help.route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only states routing to a 'safest recommended' workflow without explaining how safety is determined, what actions the tool performs, or any side effects. Significant gaps remain.

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 extremely concise (one sentence, 15 words). However, it lacks structure like bullet points or paragraphs to separate key information. It earns points for brevity but loses for not organizing content.

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 tool has 2 parameters with no schema descriptions, no output schema, and no annotations, a single sentence is insufficient. The description does not cover expected output, parameter details, or safety behavior, leaving an agent underinformed.

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 description must add meaning for the parameters 'goal' and 'mode'. However, it provides no additional context about what 'goal' should contain or how 'mode' affects behavior. The parameter names and enums are self-explanatory but insufficient.

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: routing a natural-language goal to the safest recommended tool workflow. It uses a specific verb ('route') and resource ('goal'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools that perform specific actions.

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 high-level goals needing routing, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or provide exclusion criteria. The 'safest' qualifier hints at safety context, but no concrete guidance.

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