route_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does imply a read-only operation via 'Return', but it does not explicitly state whether the tool modifies any state, how errors are handled, or what the output structure looks like. This is a significant gap for a routing tool that might have side effects or require specific preconditions.

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, focused sentence that communicates the core output without any filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the key action and resources, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 description is sufficient for a basic understanding but lacks important context such as how task_type influences the returned artifacts, what 'read-first' means in practice, and when a user would invoke this tool instead of directly reading docs or listing tasks. An output schema exists, so return values need not be detailed, but the purpose and workflow integration remain underspecified.

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?

The schema description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (task_type and detail) adequately documented in the input schema. The description itself does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies. The task_type parameter's cross-reference to list_task_types() in the schema already provides helpful context.

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 with a specific verb ('Return') and resource types ('read-first docs, rules, entrypoints, and verify tasks') for a compiler workflow. This unique combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like read_doc, list_tasks, find_entrypoints, and verify_ladder, which each handle one of these outputs individually.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_task_types, run_task, or explain_task. It does not mention any conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer appropriate usage from the name and schema alone.

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