jev_route_task

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the decision categories (deterministic script, fast flash model, heavy frontier reasoning) and the cost/latency objective, but it does not say what the tool returns, whether it executes the task, or what side effects or errors may occur.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler. The core function, target tier types, and objective are all conveyed compactly.

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?

For a one-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is reasonably complete for invocation, but it leaves the return value and its usage relationship to sibling tools unstated. An agent would know what to pass but not clearly what to expect back.

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 100%: task_description is already described as the task, bug, or feature. The description adds the scope that the input should be a 'programming task,' which is useful, but no format, length, or example is provided beyond the schema.

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?

Description names a specific verb ('Routes'), a specific resource ('programming task'), and a concrete target ('minimal sufficient model tier') with three enumerated tiers. This clearly distinguishes it from related siblings like jev_modulate_reasoning_effort, which would change reasoning effort rather than select a model tier.

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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are given. The goal 'to optimize cost and latency' implies a use case, but the agent is not told when to choose this over jev_modulate_reasoning_effort or other sibling tools, nor what circumstances make routing unnecessary.

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