Trigger one model-router pass immediately to route agent tasks across connected models. Use force to start a pass even when none is due; running passes are never duplicated.
Run one model-router tick now. force=True starts a pass even when none is due (a pass that is already running is never duplicated).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| force | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.21.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare this is a non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds genuine value beyond that: a pass that is already running is never duplicated, which is a concurrency guarantee an agent could not get from the annotations. It stops short of saying whether repeated forced calls stack up work or what happens on failure.
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?
Two short sentences with the action front-loaded and the parameter caveat second. No filler.
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 exists, so return values need no explanation, and annotations cover the safety profile. For a one-parameter action tool this is nearly complete; only the meaning of a 'tick' and the no-op case for force=False are left implicit.
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%, so the description must carry the single parameter's meaning, and it does: force=True starts a pass even when none is due. Default is true in the schema, so the added behavioral nuance is the useful part. It does not explain what force=False yields when no pass is due (no-op?), which is the remaining gap.
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 specific verb and resource: run one model-router tick now. That clearly separates it from the read-only sibling model_router_status, though the description never names that sibling explicitly. The term 'tick'/'pass' is unexplained jargon, so an agent understands the action but not exactly what runs.
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?
It implies usage (trigger a tick immediately) and explains one condition via force, but never says when to prefer this over model_router_status or when not to call it. The alternative is only inferable from the sibling name, not from the description.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.