9router chat

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

Annotations are all false and provide little signal beyond non-readonly and non-idempotent. The description adds that this is a single-shot completion that returns usage info, which is useful context. However, it does not disclose that this likely invokes external model APIs, may incur costs, or that results are non-deterministic — leaving the behavioral burden partially unmet.

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 short sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded and every word contributes. This is appropriately concise for a simple chat tool.

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 six parameters at 0% schema coverage and a large sibling family of nine_* tools, this description is too sparse. It does not explain parameter choices, how 'combo' differs from a plain model, or when to prefer this over streaming/fanout variants. The presence of an output schema mitigates missing return details, but the description is still incomplete for correct usage.

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 the description must compensate. It only hints that 'model' can be 'any combo/model,' but does not explain the expected format of model identifiers, what prompt/system/temperature/max_tokens/timeout mean, or how to discover available combos. Most parameter semantics are left to inference from names and defaults.

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 states a clear verb+resource: 'Ask any combo/model' with 'single-shot completion.' The phrase 'single-shot' implicitly distinguishes it from nine_chat_stream, and 'any combo/model' hints at the router nature, but it does not explicitly name sibling tools or clarify what 'combo' means. Still, the purpose is largely clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like nine_chat_stream, nine_fanout, or nine_combos. The description gives no conditions, exclusions, or recommendations. An agent must infer usage context from the tool name and sibling list.

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