sim_fleet_route

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It clearly discloses that the tool probes running sim MCPs, selects a backend based on keywords, returns URL/metadata, and does not perform the backend call itself. It does not cover edge behavior such as no available backend or ambiguous keyword matches, but the disclosed behavior is materially useful.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core action, and every sentence carries information: routing intent, selection behavior, keyword mapping, output, and caller responsibility. No filler or repetition.

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?

The description covers the main workflow, input semantics, and expected return, and an output schema exists so return-value details are handled. It lacks guidance on fallback behavior when no backends are running or when keyword matching fails, which would make routing behavior fully predictable.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of the task parameter through concrete keyword-to-backend mappings (sensors → Gazebo, rendering → Isaac, etc.), which goes beyond the schema's generic 'Description of the simulation task.'

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, resource, and outcome: route a simulation task to the best available backend and return its URL and metadata. It clearly distinguishes itself from execution tools by noting that the caller makes the actual API call, and from listing/status tools by focusing on probing and selection.

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 provides clear context for when to use this tool: whenever a simulation task needs to be routed to an appropriate backend. It also gives concrete keyword-to-backend mappings and clarifies the caller still performs API execution, but it does not explicitly contrast with sibling tools like sim_fleet_backends or sim_fleet_status.

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