epistemic_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the tool's internal logic (inspecting signals and selecting flows) but does not disclose output format, side effects, or constraints (e.g., rate limits, error handling). The mention that 'Existing tools work exactly as before' subtly reassures non-destructiveness.

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 well-structured with clear sections, bullet points for the 5 flows, and a concise instruction to call before optimize_context. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the tool.

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 complexity and lack of annotations, the description provides a thorough overview of the flows and usage context. It does not detail the 4 signals or output format, but the presence of an output schema (not shown) reduces the burden. Overall, it is adequate for agent understanding.

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%, but the description includes an 'Args' section explaining each parameter beyond the schema. It defines query as 'user query or event description', explains is_event as indicator for change-driven events, and lists examples for event_type, adding meaningful semantic context.

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 routes a query through the Epistemic Ingress Controller, inspects 4 signals, and selects one of 5 canonical flows. It distinguishes itself from the sibling tool optimize_context by instructing to call this tool before that one.

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 explicitly recommends calling this tool before optimize_context, providing clear context. However, it does not specify when not to use it or provide alternative tools for similar purposes, though the sibling list is extensive.

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