autotask_router

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

Without annotations, the description must disclose behavior. It accurately describes the router's function: it suggests a tool and pre-fills parameters based on the user's intent. However, it does not specify limitations, such as whether it only suggests tools from the current server or how it handles ambiguous intents. A minor gap, but generally transparent.

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 concise at two sentences, with the key purpose and usage guideline front-loaded. It could be slightly more structured by separating the usage condition, but overall it is efficient and informative.

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?

Given the simplicity of the tool (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers the essential information: what it does and when to use it. However, it could mention that the tool returns a suggestion (tool name and parameters) rather than executing the action, which would be helpful for an agent. Still, it is complete enough for effective use.

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 coverage is 100% with a single parameter 'intent'. The description adds meaning by providing natural language examples ('find tickets for Acme Corp', 'log 2 hours on ticket 12345'), which clarifies what kind of input is expected. This adds value beyond the schema's basic description.

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: 'Intelligent tool router - describe what you want to do and get the right tool suggestion with pre-filled parameters.' This distinguishes it from siblings, which are all direct action tools for specific Autotask operations. The verb 'router' and resource 'tools' are specific and 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 description explicitly says 'Use this when unsure which tool to call,' providing clear guidance on when to use this alternative to sibling tools. It effectively acts as a meta-tool for tool selection.

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