route_xingce_question

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

Despite no annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: it routes without solving, returns module guess, confidence, recommended tool/track, and reasoning signals. It also clarifies it does not answer questions or select options. No mention of idempotency or auth, but sufficient for a routing 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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and consists of three concise sentences with no wasted words. Every sentence adds value (purpose, supported parameters, what it returns, what it does not do).

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 covers main purpose and behavior well, and with an output schema present, return values are documented elsewhere. However, it lacks parameter explanations for 4 of 6 parameters and does not provide explicit comparison with sibling tools beyond the 'without solving' distinction.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It only explains module_hint and section_context for guiding routing, covering 2 of 6 parameters. Options, strict_mode, and image_present are not mentioned, leaving significant gaps.

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 routes a question to a recommended module or scaffold without solving. It uses specific verb 'route' and resource 'module or scaffold', and distinguishes itself from siblings like solve_data_analysis and solve_logic_reasoning by explicitly stating it does not solve.

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 clarifies what the tool does and does not do (does not answer or select options), and mentions supported parameters for guiding routing. However, it does not explicitly mention when to use this tool versus alternatives like classify_question, though the distinction from solving tools is clear.

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