coeus_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. It only says 'choose' without explaining side effects such as whether it invokes external APIs, costs money, overrides user-specified parameters, or how the 'auto' provider behaves. It does not mention what the output looks like or whether it is deterministic. This is a significant gap for a tool with many parameters and no annotation support.

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 single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and key decision factors. It contains zero waste and is easily scannable, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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 12 parameters, 100% schema coverage, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too thin. It does not explain the tool's return value (e.g., whether it returns a routing decision, a message, or an error), how the 'auto' provider selection works, or the meaning of 'workflow.' For a complex routing tool, the description should provide more context about expected behavior and outcomes, but it leaves many critical details unexplained.

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 description coverage is 100%, so all 12 parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value by referencing 'task, budget, speed, and vision needs,' which map to a few parameters but does not explain their interplay or provide syntax beyond the schema. Per the baseline, a score of 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clear purpose: it selects provider, model, and workflow based on task, budget, speed, and vision needs. The verb 'choose' and the resource ('provider, model, workflow') are specific. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the many sibling tools that also handle specific tasks (e.g., coeus_analyze, coeus_summarize), so an agent might not know whether to route through this or call a specialized tool directly.

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 when to use it: when you have task, budget, speed, and vision needs to consider. This gives context but does not state explicit exclusions or alternatives. It does not say 'use this when you need automatic model selection' or 'for simple tasks, use a dedicated tool instead.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, so it is average.

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