gk_route

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal a useful behavior: 'unknown action returns allowed list (saves schema tokens).' However, it does not mention side effects, prerequisites, or return format details, leaving transparency partial.

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 short and starts with the core purpose, making it easy to scan. However, the phrase '1 actions' is ambiguous and 'saves schema tokens' is cryptic, which slightly hurts clarity. Overall it is appropriately sized but not perfectly polished.

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 the tool's simplicity and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential input parameters and the key edge case of an unknown action. It does not explain the role of the 'args' object in detail, but for a router with a free-form args field, this is acceptable. The description is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage and no enums, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing the allowed action values ('/ask|/plan|/debug|/ultradeep|/view|/verify') and clarifying that args is optional with a default of null. This gives the agent everything needed to construct a valid call.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Classify intent into /ask|/plan|/debug|/ultradeep|/view|/verify.' It names the specific verb (classify) and resource (intent), and enumerates the allowed target actions. This distinguishes it from sibling tools that likely execute those actions rather than route to them.

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 explicit invocation instructions ('Pass action= and optional args={}'), which tells the agent how to call the tool. However, it does not explain when to prefer this tool over siblings or mention any exclusions, so the usage guidance is mostly syntactic rather than contextual.

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