llm_auto

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that it flushes pending savings records, appends a savings envelope every 5 calls, and works from any host with server-side tracking. However, it does not mention potential side effects or errors.

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 well-structured with a concise first line, bullet points, and a clear parameter list. It is mildly verbose with some redundancy (e.g., 'Equivalent to llm_route but additionally'), but overall effective.

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?

The description covers usage, behavior, and parameter meanings but does not explain the output or error conditions. An output schema exists but is not referenced. The tool is moderately complex, so more detail on return values would improve completeness.

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 coverage is 0%, but the description explains each parameter with context, including the list of valid values for task_type and profile_override, which adds meaning beyond the schema's type-only definitions.

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 is an 'Auto-routing wrapper with persistent savings tracking' and distinguishes it from the sibling llm_route by explaining the additional savings handling.

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 explicitly says 'Use llm_auto instead of llm_route when you are in a host that lacks a UserPromptSubmit hook' and contrasts with llm_savings, providing clear when-to-use guidance.

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