nestor_tool_route

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint=false annotation, the description discloses that it is read-oriented yet leaves a hash-chained ledger, indicating side effects. It also states it 'never guesses' and mentions integrity checks, providing additional behavioral expectations not captured in annotations.

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 verbose with multiple clauses and parenthetical asides, making it longer than necessary. It could be streamlined to focus on the core action and key conditions without the repetitive phrasing about 'served,' 'queued,' and 'unavailable.'

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 absence of an output schema, the description adequately explains the possible return statuses (served, queued, unavailable) and the associated resolved tool or reason. It covers the main scenario but omits details like error formats or edge cases, which is acceptable for a routing tool.

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 includes query and app_id with no descriptions, and the description provides no information about these parameters. Schema coverage is 0%, and the description does not compensate by explaining their roles or expected formats.

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 routes a natural-language intent to the appropriate willow-mcp verb, providing a specific action and resource. It also distinguishes this from merely searching or executing, and the mention of 'human-sealed phrasing' and 'match threshold' adds 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?

The description explains the routing behavior and status outcomes but does not specify when a user should choose this tool over alternatives like agent_route or dispatch_send. There is no explicit context or condition for use, leaving the agent to infer applicability.

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