green-router__green_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states 'FREE' but does not explicitly confirm read-only behavior, discuss side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits. While it implies a safe query, it lacks the transparency required for a mutation-free tool.

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 concise with two clear sentences. The prefix is somewhat promotional but still informative. The core message is front-loaded and contains essential details without verbosity.

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's simplicity, the description covers the output (greenest path and gCO2e saved) but omits parameter details and prerequisites. It does not fully compensate for the missing output schema and nested object complexity, leaving some gaps.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must compensate, but it adds negligible parameter insight. It mentions 'workload' without defining its structure or contents, and 'allowed_backends' is not explained. This leaves the agent to guess at valid input values.

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 tool's purpose: 'rank compute backends by carbon for this workload' returning 'the greenest eligible path and the gCO2e saved per call'. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying 'Carbon only (GR6)' and suggests pairing with 'route_task for quality-floor routing', effectively differentiating it as a carbon-only ranking tool.

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 provides explicit guidance: use this tool for carbon-aware ranking, and pair it with neurogenesis__route_task for quality-floor routing. It implies when not to use (quality concerns) and offers a clear alternative, making the usage context unambiguous.

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