cos_route_skill

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context beyond those hints: cold start behavior reads from skill-enforcement.md, warm behavior uses historical successful skills, and returns a JSON list. This is a meaningful supplement, though it does not cover all edge cases (e.g., error handling).

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 compact and well-structured: a one-sentence summary, cold/warm behavior, a clearly labeled Args section, and a Returns section. No filler or redundancy; every sentence contributes to understanding.

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 presence of an output schema, the description appropriately includes return format. It covers cold/warm behavior, parameter details, and output structure. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool correctly without additional context.

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 the full burden. It explains domain with examples, task_type as optional with examples, and complexity as Cynefin classification with optionality. This is helpful, though the lack of an enumerated list for complexity and domain values leaves some ambiguity.

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 a specific action ('Recommend skills') and identifies the resource (skills based on historical outcome data). The cold/warm distinction adds behavioral scope, and the title 'Route Skill Recommendation' reinforces the purpose. It is well differentiated from sibling tools like cos_route_model by focusing on skill recommendation.

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 for when the tool is used: cold start returns static defaults, warm start augments with historical successes. It does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, but the behavior is described well enough for an agent to infer appropriate usage.

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