plan_route

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Nothing is switched' and frames the operation as a dry run, making the non-destructive nature and hypothetical outcome clear.

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 and front-loaded: it states the action, the key outputs, the safety behavior, and the recommended usage context in a few short sentences. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

Despite minimal parameter descriptions, the tool context is complete: the description explains what the tool does, what it returns, that it is non-destructive, and when to invoke it. An output schema exists, so return-value details are not the description's burden.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does not explain how endpoints should be specified, what formats are expected, or where valid endpoint values come from. The names from_endpoint and to_endpoint are self-evident, but the description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond them.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Dry run a route' and clearly states what it returns—the crosspoints that would close and whether interlocks permit it. It also distinguishes itself from switching/reservation tools by noting 'Nothing is switched.'

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 gives an explicit usage trigger: 'Ask this before reserving the chassis.' It conveys that this is a preflight check and contrasts with actual switching, though it does not explicitly name alternative tools such as route_signal or reserve_chassis.

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