glm_5_evaluate_model_routing

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the core action without detailing side effects, return values, rate limits, or any constraints beyond 'without executing.' This leaves significant uncertainty.

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 a single sentence, which is concise, but it sacrifices necessary detail. While front-loaded with purpose, it is under-specified given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema). It could be longer to include key guidance.

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 lack of output schema, zero parameter descriptions, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain the return format, behavior with invalid input, or provide any usage context beyond the bare action.

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 coverage is 0% – the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds no information about what 'request' or 'imagePath' represent, their formats, or how they affect the output. This is a critical gap for a tool with two parameters.

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 action ('Score likely routing modes') and distinguishes it from executing the routed tool. It is specific and differentiates from sibling tools like smart_route and route_agentic_task, which actually perform routing.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It only mentions 'without executing,' implying evaluation before routing, but does not state prerequisites, when not to use it, or name alternative tools for different scenarios.

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