hub__route_task

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It reveals no specifics about behavior: whether it actually invokes tools, just recommends them, or returns a plan. The description doesn't state side effects, whether it has rate limits, or what happens on ambiguous tasks—all unknown for an orchestration tool.

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 efficient sentence with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the action verb and clearly names the input. Adequately concise for the information it conveys.

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 routing/orchestration tool with no annotations, no output schema, and the key task of deciding which tools to use, the description is thin. It doesn't clarify whether the tool executes tasks, returns suggestions, or how it discovers available tools. Given the tool's orchestrator role, richer description of behavior and outcome is expected.

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 coverage is 100% for the single 'task' parameter, and the schema already explains 'What you want to accomplish.' The description adds no additional semantic information about the format, expected detail level, or constraints of the task string. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter.

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 verb ('route') and resource ('a natural-language task to the best tool(s)'). It's clear in intent but somewhat generic—it doesn't distinguish what makes this routing tool special versus its siblings, particularly hub__search_tools which likely has overlapping utility for finding tools.

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 the primary use case (routing NL tasks to appropriate tools) but provides no explicit when-to-use vs. alternative guidance. It doesn't mention when one might prefer hub__search_tools for finding tools versus routing through this tool, leaving the decision boundary ambiguous.

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