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. It discloses the analytical scope (routing decisions, downshift rates, cost efficiency) and temporal nature ('specified period'), but omits safety characteristics (read-only status), performance costs, or data freshness (real-time vs cached).

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 appropriately sized with good front-loading—the first sentence summarizes the output metrics, followed by behavioral context, then parameter details. The 'Args:' section is functional though slightly informal; no sentences feel wasted.

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 has only one simple parameter and an output schema exists (reducing the need to describe return values), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the tool's specific domain (routing quality) and the single parameter, though it could mention permissions or cost implications given the analytical nature.

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 schema has 0% description coverage for the 'days' parameter. The description compensates by documenting it in the Args section: 'Number of days to include in the report (default 7),' providing necessary semantic meaning and default value that the schema lacks.

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 shows 'routing quality metrics' including 'classification accuracy, savings, model distribution,' and analyzes 'routing decisions' and 'classifier' performance. This distinguishes it from operational siblings like llm_route and llm_classify by positioning it as a retrospective analysis/reporting tool.

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?

While the description clarifies the scope (analyzing routing decisions over a specified period), it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this versus similar siblings like llm_dashboard or llm_analyze. No 'when-not-to-use' or alternative recommendations are provided.

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