route_step

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility, and it delivers: it discloses that the response is advisory, non-blocking, schema-driven, versioned, comparable across models, and re-measurable. It also clarifies the decision should not be the sole gate for action. This is rich behavioral context beyond a simple 'routes a step.'

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 dense but tightly organized: action and timing up front, then tier definitions, then advisory caveat, then alternative routing. Every sentence contributes; no filler or redundancy.

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?

Purpose, advisory nature, evaluation semantics, and alternative routing are all covered. An output schema exists, so return-value documentation is not needed. The only gap is unspecified parameter details for backend and timeout_ms, but these are minor given the rich context and existing schema.

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. It adds meaning to the core 'task' parameter by describing routing dimensions (tiers, needs_tools, sensitive flags). However, it does not explain 'backend' or 'timeout_ms,' leaving those undocumented in both schema and description. Strong on the central parameter, slightly incomplete on the others.

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+resource: 'Route a step to a tier BEFORE running it,' and concretely defines the tier meanings (economy vs frontier) with behavioral attributes. It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling laya_route by noting it is the 'measured, schema-driven one,' so an agent can distinguish the tools without opening schemas.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance: decide which model should do the work, never to block an action, and gate on the committed eval rather than a single call. It names an alternative (laya_route) and states the condition selecting it (fixed-preset vs measured). No ambiguity remains about when this tool should be invoked.

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