call_tool

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions gates (lazy lifecycle, policy, timeout, audit) but does not explain what these imply for the caller, such as side effects, authentication needs, or error handling. This is insufficient for a tool that likely executes actions.

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 appropriately concise, but it lacks structure and depth. It is not front-loaded with critical details beyond the basic action, and it does not earn its place by conveying essential information.

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 object parameter (arguments), no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely under-specified. It fails to explain what a router tool is, how the gates affect execution, or what the expected outcome is, leaving the agent with substantial uncertainty.

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 has 0% description coverage and the description does not mention the parameters (tool_id, arguments) at all. An agent has no way to understand what tool_id refers to or how to structure the arguments object, making correct invocation nearly impossible.

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 states a clear verb ('Call') and a specific resource type ('router tool'), which is distinct from siblings like list_backends or search_tools. However, it does not clarify which specific router tool or what makes it unique beyond the mention of gates, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as list_backends, search_tools, or load_tool. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context.

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