router_chat

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions optional memory and workflow guidance, but does not disclose potential side effects, dependencies on session state, or whether it may trigger other tools. This is thin for a central orchestration tool.

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 compact sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the key identity as 'Main brain chat tool' and keeps optional features brief, earning every word.

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?

For a tool with 9 parameters, no annotations, and a central orchestration role, a one-sentence description is insufficient. It doesn't explain the purpose of brain_override, how memory integration works, or what constitutes 'workflow guidance', leaving significant gaps for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 all parameter semantics must come from the description. The description vaguely hints at memory (use_memory, memory_namespace) and workflow (task_id), but it does not explain required parameters like session_id or message, nor does it clarify top_k, rerank, brain_override, or system_prompt. The compensation is minimal.

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 identifies the tool as the 'Main brain chat tool', establishing it as the primary conversational interface. It adds scope with 'optional memory + workflow guidance' which helps distinguish it from sibling tools like memory_search and agent_llm_request, though the verb is implicit rather than explicit.

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 phrase 'Main brain chat tool' implies it is the go-to tool for general chat, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like agent_llm_request or start_session. No when-not-to-use scenarios or exclusions are provided.

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