nestor_tool_route

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

Even with no annotations, the description transparently discloses edge cases: the optional Nestor engine ('status='unavailable''), the human-seal requirement, the hash-chained ledger trail, and the signed catalog integrity check. This exceeds the minimum safety/behavior disclosure.

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 compact paragraph of four sentences that front-loads the core purpose and then efficiently covers behavior and edge cases without redundancy.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return status values and the conditions under which each occurs, plus installation fallback and integrity guarantees. This provides a complete mental model for the tool's behavior.

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% and the description does not explain the two parameters beyond the schema's minimal titles. It implicitly references 'query' as natural-language intent, but 'app_id' is never mentioned, leaving the agent to infer its purpose.

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 opens with a clear verb+resource: 'Route a natural-language intent to the willow-mcp verb that serves it.' This identifies the tool's unique role among siblings, distinguishing it as a router rather than a direct executor.

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 explains the routing logic with status outcomes (served/queued/unavailable) and states that it never guesses a verb, which implies when it should be used. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when-not scenarios relative to sibling tools like agent_route or direct verb calls.

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