neurogenesis__route_task

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It helpfully discloses that a no-work decision is possible and that no result is then claimed, and that a hash-bound decision receipt is returned. However it omits permission requirements, reversibility, and failure modes, which leaves meaningful gaps for a routing decision.

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?

Most of the content is front-loaded, but the opening bracketed preamble is dense marketing copy occupying significant space without adding operational value. The remaining sentences are efficient but the overall shape wastes reader attention before reaching the functional detail.

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 two-parameter tool with nested objects, no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description should fully document what the task object contains and what request_id does. It instead only gestures at constraint categories, so an agent cannot construct a valid call from the description alone.

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. The only parameter it names is 'task', while request_id is never mentioned, and the task object's nested fields are described only by reference to hard constraints rather than by name. With two undocumented parameters and a nested object, the description leaves critical input semantics unexplained.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Choose the least-burden eligible route for a task.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like green-router__green_route and verified__call_verified by the optimization objective (least-burden) and receipt, though the dense bracketed framing slightly obscures the core purpose.

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?

It describes hard constraints and mentions explicit allow_defer/value/urgency fields producing a no-work decision, which implies when the tool is relevant, but it never states when NOT to use it or names an alternative routing tool such as green-router__green_route.

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