route_xingce_question

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool does not solve or answer questions, and describes return elements (module guess, confidence, recommended tool/track, reasoning signals). While it does not explicitly state read-only behavior, the nature of routing implies no side effects. This is good transparency.

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 brief (two sentences plus a short detailing of returns). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and includes necessary caveats. No wasted words.

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 tool complexity (6 parameters, no annotations, but has output schema), the description covers the primary purpose and behavior but lacks detailed parameter explanations. It is adequate for basic understanding but incomplete for comprehensive 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 description coverage is 0%, so description must compensate. It only mentions 'module_hint' and 'section_context' for guiding routing, leaving four other parameters (question_text, options, image_present, strict_mode) unexplained. This is insufficient for a 6-parameter tool.

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 verb 'route' and the resource 'question', specifying it routes to a module or scaffold without solving. It explicitly distinguishes from solving tools by stating 'does not answer questions or select options', which differentiates it from siblings like solve_data_analysis or solve_logic_reasoning.

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 gives context for usage ('Route a question to the recommended module or scaffold without solving') and states what it does not do, but it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like classify_question or the solve tools. No comparison or exclusion criteria are provided.

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