ypollak2/llm-router

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It successfully indicates scope ('all configured' providers), but fails to clarify whether this performs live API probes or cached checks, potential latency costs, or safety characteristics (read-only vs. side effects).

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 consists of a single, efficient sentence with no filler words. It is front-loaded with the core action and subject, making it immediately scannable.

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 low complexity (zero inputs) and the presence of an output schema, the description adequately covers the essential purpose. A minor gap remains in defining 'health status' specifics, but this is likely addressed in the output schema.

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 tool accepts zero parameters, which establishes a baseline score of 4 per the evaluation rubric. No parameter semantic guidance is required or provided.

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 identifies the action ('Check') and target ('health status of all configured LLM providers'), distinguishing it from siblings like llm_providers (likely just listing) or llm_check_usage (usage metrics). However, 'Check' is a weaker verb than 'Retrieve' or 'Get', and it doesn't specify what 'health' encompasses (connectivity, quotas, latency).

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 provides no guidance on when to invoke this tool versus alternatives like llm_providers or llm_dashboard. It omits prerequisites (e.g., whether providers must be configured first) and triggers (e.g., 'use before generation to verify availability').

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