jev_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses return behavior ('Returns only the YES tools with their input schemas, and the instructions of each YES playbook'), which is useful. However, it omits other behavioral traits like whether the operation is read-only, side effects, or permission requirements.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and no wasted words. Structure is appropriate for a tool description.

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?

An output schema exists, so the description needn't explain return values in full, yet it does so helpfully. However, it lacks critical context for a routing tool: when to invoke it relative to sibling jev_call, and how to formulate the 'request' parameter. This makes it only moderately complete for an agent's needs.

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?

There is one parameter ('request') with 0% schema description coverage. The description says 'a request needs' but adds no meaning beyond the schema—no format, examples, or expected content. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb ('Decide') and resource ('which tools and playbooks a request needs'), making the purpose clear. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling tool jev_call, so an agent cannot infer the division of labor from the description alone.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling jev_call is never mentioned, and there is no explicit context about when routing should occur (e.g., before calling tools). Usage is only implied by the description of what the tool does.

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