neurogenesis__route_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: determinism, logging with reasons, the hard contract preventing quality regression, and the min_quality constraint. However, it omits potential side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.

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 reasonably concise, fitting all key points in a single paragraph. The prefix in brackets adds context, but the core message is front-loaded and efficient. Minor improvement could break into structured points.

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 has one nested object parameter and no output schema, the description covers the input structure, behavioral contract, and key constraints. It is complete enough for an agent to understand usage, though return value information is absent (not required without output schema).

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?

The input schema has 0% description coverage with a generic object, so the description compensates by listing expected fields (id, task_type, etc.) with notation for optionality and min_quality range. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema, though individual field semantics could be more detailed.

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 explicitly states the tool's purpose: 'Choose the cheapest RELIABLE compute path for a task'. It clearly identifies the verb (choose) and resource (compute path), and the context of 'route_task' distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'neurogenesis__compute_efficiency_report' or 'neurogenesis__register_compute_profile'.

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 a hard contract (NG7) that defines eligibility criteria for compute profiles, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or exclude misuse cases. The guidelines are implicit rather than explicit.

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