cos_route_model

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral details: the cold-start fallback to a static default, warm queries over success rates, and the JSON return structure. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 (intro, Args, Returns) and is front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the cold/warm logic, parameter details, and return type are all relevant and concise.

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 moderate complexity, the description covers the essential aspects: the decision logic, parameter semantics, and return format. It does not mention potential errors or more detailed output field descriptions, but the presence of an output schema and annotations reduces the need. Slightly more detail on the fallback_model and performance.md would elevate completeness.

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 carries full responsibility for parameter meaning. It thoroughly explains each parameter: complexity with Cynefin enum values, dimensions with a default, and domain with an example and optional status. This compensates fully for the missing schema documentation.

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 opens with a specific action ('Recommend optimal model') and resource ('based on historical outcome data'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like cos_route_skill. It further clarifies the cold-start and warm-start logic, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 clear context on when the tool is used (cold vs warm), but it does not state explicit alternatives or when-not-to-use. Given the presence of cos_route_skill and other route-related siblings, naming an alternative would have improved guidance.

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