route_lesson

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It clearly states the key side-effect boundary: 'this tool never writes to disk,' and clarifies that the caller, not the tool, chooses the target. It doesn't discuss errors or cost, but for a one-input read-only analysis tool the important behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 sentences contain the action, the input scope, the output, and the side-effect guarantee. The most important information is front-loaded, and there is no redundant restatement of the tool name or schema.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned ('ranked routing recommendation with matched keywords') and what it does not do (writes). It leaves the exact shape of the ranked recommendation unspecified, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

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 already describes the single 'lesson' parameter at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by enumerating valid lesson categories ('correction, standing rule, preference') and by reinforcing that the text must be a durable lesson, which helps the agent decide what to pass.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Score a durable lesson ... against the standing files and return the ranked routing recommendation with matched keywords.' It also defines what counts as a durable lesson ('correction, standing rule, preference'), so there is little ambiguity about what this tool does. This is distinct from the sibling tools because it is about routing/scoring rather than retrieving identity or files.

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 its use when a routing recommendation is needed and explicitly warns that it 'never writes to disk', which covers a when-not case. However, it does not name alternatives or state conditions that should route the agent to current_identity or standing_files instead, so usage guidance is mostly implied rather than explicit.

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