Phone Route

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

One genuinely useful behavioral fact is disclosed: the route persists across a server restart. No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about permissions, whether an existing route is replaced, or what the response contains for this mutating routing tool.

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?

Only two sentences, but the first is garbled mid-clause ('none: back to the playing engine's project'), so the front-loading is broken and the reader must reconstruct the intent. Brevity here comes from under-specification, not tightness.

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?

An output schema covers return values, but for a routing/configuration mutation with zero annotations and zero schema coverage the description should explain scope (per song? global?), the effect of re-invocation, and the default route. None of that is reliably present.

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% for the single 'inbox' parameter. The description does gesture at its meaning (a file such as a song's notes/phone_inbox.jsonl) which is more than the schema offers, but the phrasing is ambiguous enough that an agent cannot confidently infer the accepted format or the default behavior.

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 hints at two things – writing incoming phone content to a JSONL file, and falling back to the playing engine's project – but never states plainly what phone_route actually does (route phone input somewhere?). It is distinguishable from phone_listen/phone_claim only by guesswork.

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?

No statement of when to call this versus the many phone_* siblings (phone_status, phone_watch, phone_timeline, etc.), no prerequisites, no conditions. The fragment 'none: back to the playing engine's project' gestures at a default but not at a decision rule.

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