glm_5_route_agentic_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It clearly states that the tool proposes but never executes host tools, which is critical behavioral info. However, it omits other traits like whether it modifies state, requires approvals, or returns intermediate results.

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 concise (one sentence) and front-loaded with the action verb 'Delegate'. However, it is too brief for a tool with 7 parameters and many siblings, sacrificing necessary detail for brevity.

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 (7 params, many siblings, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, session management, relationship to other tools, or preconditions. The agent would lack needed context for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema has 7 parameters (e.g., maxSteps, contextCode, sessionName) with 0% schema description coverage. The tool description provides no explanations for any parameter, leaving the agent without crucial guidance on how to populate them.

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: delegate multi-step planning, implementation proposals, debugging, migrations, or refactors to GLM. It explicitly distinguishes itself by noting that GLM proposes but never executes host tools, differentiating it from siblings that likely involve execution or approval.

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 for complex multi-step tasks, but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many siblings (e.g., glm_5_plan_code_change, glm_5_propose_changes). No when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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