laya_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It does reveal the decision output ('act/escalate signal') and the dimensions considered, which is meaningful beyond what the output schema would show. But it stays silent on failure behavior, timeout semantics (relevant given timeout_ms param), and what happens when the routing is ambiguous — leaving the agent to discover these at runtime.

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?

Two sentences, no fluff, purpose front-loaded in the first clause. Every clause earns its place — outputs are listed compactly and the usage trigger is given immediately after. Minor deduction because the structure could have folded parameter guidance into the same space without adding length.

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 core intent and use-case trigger are well covered, and the existence of an output schema relieves the description of return-format duties. But with no annotations and 0% schema coverage, the timeout parameter is entirely undocumented, and the routing criteria are described at a high level without example inputs/outputs. For a tool this central to cost control, an example of a routed result would materially improve completeness.

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, but it only implicitly references the 'task' parameter ('for a task description') and says nothing at all about timeout_ms. Neither parameter gets a format, expected value range, or example. The burden is on the description to document parameters when the schema has empty descriptions, and it fails to do so for half of them.

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 specific verb ('route') applied to a task description, and enumerates the concrete outputs: difficulty, model tier, tool/human-review need, and an act/escalate signal. This clearly distinguishes it from generic 'decide'/'classify' siblings, though it never names an alternative explicitly. The stated intent — cost/quality tradeoff before expensive work — makes the role unambiguous.

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 second sentence gives an explicit trigger: 'Use before firing a scheduled job or an expensive agent turn.' This is concrete and actionable. However, it offers no negative guidance — it never says when NOT to use this tool or points to a sibling (e.g., laya_gate or laya_classify) for cases where pure classification or gating is needed instead.

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