orchestrator_route

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds a small behavioral detail about waiting for a gate to identify missing capability, but it does not clarify what happens to the task in either branch or whether there are any side effects beyond the routing decision.

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 one short sentence and leads with the core verb and object, making it efficiently scannable. However, the trailing clause is dense and jargon-heavy ('smoke or validation gate', 'missing capability'), which reduces clarity even though the length is appropriate.

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?

There is no output schema, no description of return values, no explanation of what 'route' or 'keep it with Orchestrator' means operationally, and no indication of what the agent should do next based on the result. Given the 1-parameter, no-output-schema complexity, the description is too incomplete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 single task parameter has zero schema description coverage, so the tool description must explain it. It merely says 'Route a task', giving no guidance on expected content, format, length considerations, or how the task string influences the routing outcome. An agent would be guessing about what to put in the parameter.

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 has a clear verb ('Route') and a clear object ('a task'), but it does not explain what routing actually entails, where the task is routed to, or how this tool differs from siblings like orchestrator_context. The phrase 'or keep it with Orchestrator' is vague and leaves the core function ambiguous.

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 this tool is used at a smoke or validation gate to decide whether to route a task onward or retain it, but it never explicitly states when to invoke it, when not to, or which alternative tool might be better. The usage context is embedded in the wording but not made actionable.

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