resolve_tw_scenario

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavioral traits (side effects, permissions, etc.). It only states it 'resolves... routing', which could be a read or write operation. No mention of idempotency, data mutations, or required permissions. The description does not contradict any missing annotations, but it adds minimal transparency.

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 extremely short (one sentence), but it does not earn its place because it is too vague. It is not front-loaded with important information; it uses generic language ('resolve', 'routing') that does not convey enough detail. True conciseness would capture the tool's essence without sacrificing clarity.

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 complexity (9 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is grossly incomplete. It does not explain what output is returned, what the parameters control, or any business logic. An agent cannot reliably invoke this tool without additional documentation or examples.

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 input schema has 9 parameters with 0% description coverage (no descriptions in the schema), and the tool description does not explain any of them. The description mentions 'jurisdiction' and 'case_type' only implicitly via the schema requirements. It fails to add meaning beyond the schema, such as what each parameter means or how they influence routing. For a tool with many parameters, this is severely lacking.

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 specifies a verb ('Resolve'), a resource ('Taiwan/New Taipei interior renovation scenario routing'), and a target ('source packs, artifacts, and gates'). However, 'resolve' is vague and does not clarify whether it is a lookup, transformation, or routing decision. It distinguishes from some siblings (e.g., 'check_*' tools) but not from other 'resolve_*' tools. Overall, it conveys a general purpose but lacks precision.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, limitations, or conditions. Without explicit usage context, an agent cannot determine when to invoke this tool over similar siblings like 'resolve_procedure_requirements' or 'check_material_evidence'.

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