mimry_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states only that it recommends items, without indicating whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are needed, whether it mutates state, or any rate limits. The behavioral burden is largely 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?

The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It lists the outputs compactly, though the density of nouns makes it feel slightly like a label rather than a complete instruction.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. However, with 3 parameters at 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no usage guidance, the definition leaves significant gaps for correct invocation (e.g., what query should contain, what root and limit do).

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% and the description does not mention any of the three parameters (query, root, limit). The only clue is 'for a task,' which loosely implies the query parameter, but no parameter meaning, format, or default behavior is added.

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 uses a specific verb ('Recommend') and enumerates the resources it produces: agent/role, context packs, files, risk gates, and verification. It does not distinguish itself from sibling tools like mimry_context or mimry_plan_tree, but the purpose is 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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. The phrase 'for a task' implies the tool is invoked when a task needs routing recommendations, but there are no explicit conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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