ypollak2/llm-router

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

With no annotations, description carries full burden and succeeds well: discloses background execution, 30s refresh interval, SQLite data source, localhost binding, and return format. Missing only lifecycle details (how to stop server) or port conflict behavior.

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?

Front-loaded with core action, followed by behavioral details, then Args/Returns sections. Efficient structure given schema lacks descriptions. Minor deduction for formal 'Args/Returns' labels which are slightly redundant but necessary given schema gaps.

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?

Adequate for a server-starting tool: covers background process nature, data source, refresh behavior, and return value (URL/instructions). References output schema existence appropriately without over-explaining returns.

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?

Compensates effectively for 0% schema description coverage by documenting the port parameter's purpose ('TCP port for the dashboard server') and default value (7337). Could improve by noting valid port ranges or constraints.

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?

Specific verb ('Open') combined with exact resource ('LLM Router web dashboard') and clear scope (routing stats, cost trends, model distribution). Distinct from text-based siblings like llm_check_usage or llm_cache_stats by emphasizing HTTP server and visualization.

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?

Provides implied usage through description of dashboard content (stats, trends, decisions), indicating when visualization is needed. However, lacks explicit comparison to alternatives like llm_check_usage or guidance on when text vs. web interface is preferred.

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