Analyzes a task's complexity and shows which provider or tier the router would select, helping you understand and debug routing decisions.
Analyze a task's complexity and show what provider/tier the router would select. Useful for understanding routing decisions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| task | Yes | The task to analyze. | |
| agent_type | No | Agent type (planner, executor, etc.). |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It implies a non-executing preview ('what the router *would* select'), which is a genuinely useful behavioral cue, but it never confirms the task is not executed, states cost/side effects, or describes the returned routing information.
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?
Two short sentences, zero filler, with the core action front-loaded and the rationale second. Nothing redundant.
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?
For a two-parameter read-only diagnostic with no output schema, this covers the essential question (does it run the task or just report routing?) implicitly well enough to call correctly. A brief note on what the response contains would make it complete.
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 both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description adds no meaning about how task phrasing affects the routing result or what agent_type changes.
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?
States a specific verb (analyze) and resource (a task's complexity), plus the concrete result it surfaces (provider/tier the router would select). This distinguishes it from mullet_run without naming that sibling explicitly, so it is clear but not fully differentiated.
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 phrase 'useful for understanding routing decisions' implies a diagnostic/preview use case, but it never says when to call this instead of mullet_run or mullet_delegate, nor whether it must precede an actual run.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.