Identify which checkpoint the router would use for a given state and questions, without running inference. Provides a clear explanation of the decision for offline analysis.
Explain which checkpoint the Router would use for this state, without running inference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| state | Yes | ||
| questions | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses a key behavioral trait: the tool does not run inference, which implies a read-only, explanatory operation. It does not detail side effects or permissions, but for this tool type the no-inference statement is a material and useful disclosure.
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 a single sentence that is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately adds the limiting 'without running inference'. Every word contributes meaning with no filler or redundant restatement.
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 moderately complex with a nested 'questions' parameter and no annotations, but its purpose is simple and an output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. However, the description leaves the role of 'questions' unclear, which is a meaningful gap for an agent that must construct a valid input.
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%, and the description only indirectly references 'state' while saying nothing about 'questions'. The schema provides names and types but no semantics for what should go into the questions object, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 uses a specific verb ('Explain') and resource ('which checkpoint the Router would use'), and adds a clear scoping qualifier ('without running inference'). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like decide, classify, and triage, which imply execution rather than explanation.
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 clarifies what the tool does not do ('without running inference') and thus implies it is for explanation rather than execution. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over siblings like decide or triage, nor does it provide any when-not-to-use guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.