analyze_routing_congestion

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose that the operation is non-editing and that distances are always in millimetres regardless of document units. These are important behavioral facts beyond the schema. However, it omits any prerequisites or performance characteristics, so it's not a 5.

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 highly efficient: a purpose sentence, a behavioral detail sentence, and a schema pointer. The main purpose is front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place without redundant filler.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description leaves significant gaps: the semantics of the 'ordering' enum and 'path' parameter are undefined, and there's no guidance on how connections should be structured beyond being route connections. Given the tool's 3-parameter complexity, the description is under-specified.

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 was expected to compensate but does not. It never mentions the path or ordering parameters, nor explains the meaning of 'input' vs 'congestion_aware' ordering. The only indirect clue is that 'route connections' refers to the connections parameter, which is obvious.

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 action (Rank), the object (route connections), the basis (deterministic corridor congestion), and explicitly notes it does not edit. This differentiates it from sibling routing/editing tools like route_connection and route_net.

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?

No when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternatives or exclusions are mentioned. The phrase 'without editing' implies an analysis context, but the description doesn't specify when to choose this tool over similar analysis tools like analyze_placement or route_connection.

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