get_model_routing

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses that behavior changes based on the optional task parameter (general guide vs. specific recommendation). However, it does not describe the guide's content, return format, or any potential side effects. For a read-only lookup, this is adequate but not rich.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the primary purpose and a concise explanation of the optional parameter. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or fluff. It is a model of efficient, clear writing.

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 simplicity (one optional param, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers core use: what it returns and how to get a recommendation. It could improve by specifying what the 'routing guide' includes (e.g., criteria, model use cases) or the output format. Still, it's enough for basic invocation without confusion.

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 schema already documents the 'task' parameter with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral meaning: passing a task yields a specific recommendation, while omitting it returns a general guide. This goes beyond the schema's simple 'Describe the task' and clarifies the parameter's effect on the output.

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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Returns Haiku/Sonnet/Opus routing guide.' The verb 'Returns' and specific resource (routing guide for model families) make purpose unmistakable. The optional task parameter adds nuance, clarifying it can also provide a tailored recommendation. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling get_* tools that focus on context, structure, or patterns.

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 gives clear usage guidance: 'Optionally pass task description for a specific recommendation.' This implies that omitting the task returns a general guide, and passing it yields a tailored one. While it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools, sibling names make it obvious that only this tool handles model routing, so context is clear.

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