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 constrains behavior by documenting valid values ('budget', 'balanced', 'premium'), but fails to disclose persistence scope, side effects on concurrent operations, or error handling for invalid inputs.

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?

Highly efficient two-sentence structure with zero redundancy. The purpose statement ('Switch the active routing profile') is front-loaded, followed immediately by parameter constraints. Every word earns its place.

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 single-parameter tool with an output schema (which handles return value documentation). Missing behavioral context expected for a state-mutation operation: persistence model (session vs. global), validation behavior, and impact on in-flight requests.

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?

Excellent compensation for the 0% schema description coverage. The Args section provides the critical enum values ('budget', 'balanced', 'premium') completely absent from the input schema, enabling the agent to provide valid inputs. Could improve by describing what each profile entails.

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 action ('Switch') and target ('active routing profile'), providing a concrete verb-resource pairing. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'llm_route' or clarify what constitutes a 'routing profile' in this context.

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?

No guidance provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'llm_route' or 'llm_providers'. Missing information about prerequisites (e.g., whether a session must be initialized first) or when switching profiles is appropriate.

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