route_tools

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint: true, and the description consistently indicates a read operation ('Find...'). The description adds value by specifying the return type: 'List of matching tool schema definitions or status string.' No contradiction. It also discloses the default for top_k. This fully transparent behavior is well beyond the annotation.

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 extremely concise: three lines of purpose and two lines of parameter docs. Every sentence is essential and front-loaded. No wasted words.

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?

The description covers the core functionality and return type. Given the presence of an output schema (not shown, but provided), it does not need to detail the return structure. However, it could explain how matching works (e.g., semantic search) or the relationship with 'call_routed_tool.' Still, it is complete enough for a meta-tool.

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?

Although the schema itself lacks parameter descriptions (0% coverage), the description provides meaningful context: query is 'Natural language task description or question' and top_k is 'Number of relevant tools to return. Default is 5.' This adds necessary meaning beyond the schema's type-only info, partially compensating for the gap.

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: 'Find relevant Sophos Firewall tools matching a natural language prompt.' This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools, which are operational tools for direct actions. The tool serves as a meta-tool for discovering other tools.

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 implies usage when an agent needs to find the appropriate tool for a natural language task, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The sibling 'call_routed_tool' might be related but is not mentioned. Guidance is implied but lacks explicit exclusions.

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