memorybank_route_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently describes the orchestration process (reads responsibilities, analyzes task, assigns components, returns plan) and the output format (myResponsibilities, delegations, suggestedImports). This fully informs the agent of the tool's behavior without contradictions.

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 well-structured with emojis, clear sections, and bullet points. Every sentence is meaningful: the opening emphasis, the step-by-step process, the warnings, and the output specification. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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 no output schema, the description explicitly details the return format (myResponsibilities, delegations, suggestedImports) and explains the rationale for using the tool. This is complete for a routing tool given its simplicity and the clear parameter 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 100%, so both parameters already have descriptions. The tool description adds context by explaining the role of projectId as the requesting project and taskDescription as the task to route. It also frames parameters within the overall process, adding value beyond the schema alone.

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 tool's purpose: analyzing a task and determining which parts belong to which project based on responsibilities. It uses specific verbs ('Analiza', 'determina', 'asigna') and resources ('tarea', 'proyecto'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like memorybank_delegate_task by focusing on routing before any implementation.

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?

Explicitly states it is 'OBLIGATORIO antes de implementar cualquier código' and 'DEBES llamar esta herramienta ANTES de escribir código'. It lists concrete negative consequences of not using it (creating DTOs in API when lib-dtos exists, duplicating services, violating separation of responsibilities), serving as clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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