route_turn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It explains that the tool returns a tier, odds, and confidence, and implies it is a pre-spend decision aid. However, it does not disclose whether the tool itself incurs cost, has side effects, or how the odds are computed, leaving meaningful behavioral gaps.

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 compact and front-loaded: purpose first, return value second, call timing third, then parameter definitions. Every sentence contributes useful information, and the metaphor about rename vs. architecture decision is vivid but not bloated.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with an output schema present, the description covers the main decisions an agent needs: what it does, what it returns, when to call it, and what the parameters mean. It is missing minor details like error behavior and whether tier names are validated, but those are not critical given the output schema exists.

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 explicitly defines 'task' as 'what this turn is being asked to do' and 'tiers' as tier names ordered cheapest first, with a clear default of 'fast, standard, frontier.' This adds real meaning beyond the bare 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'Pick which model tier should handle this turn.' It also clarifies the return type (tier, odds, confidence) and the cost-routing intent. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like rank_options, so it stands just short of full distinction.

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 gives an explicit call-time instruction: 'Call it at the start of a turn so a rename does not cost what an architecture decision costs.' This is solid contextual guidance on when to use it, though it does not mention when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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