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 scope (unified across all providers, includes savings) but fails to mention critical behavioral traits like whether data is cached, real-time, or requires specific permissions. The 'shows' verb implies read-only behavior, but this is not explicit.

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 first two sentences are redundant ('Unified' vs 'complete picture', 'all providers' vs listing specific providers). The 'Args:' header is filler that adds no value. While appropriately brief, the front-loading could be more efficient by merging the first two sentences.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description adequately covers the input parameter. However, given zero annotations and numerous ambiguous siblings, it should provide more behavioral context (caching, read-only confirmation) or differentiation guidance to be fully complete.

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 0% schema description coverage. The description documents the single parameter 'period' with its specific enum values ('today', 'week', 'month', 'all'), which the schema completely lacks. It clarifies the time period semantics beyond the schema's bare type information.

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 tool as a 'Unified usage dashboard' that aggregates 'Claude subscription, Codex, external APIs, and savings' across providers. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from siblings like 'llm_dashboard' or 'llm_check_usage', leaving ambiguity about which usage tool to select.

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 the numerous sibling alternatives (e.g., llm_check_usage, llm_track_usage, llm_dashboard). No prerequisites, exclusions, or workflow context is mentioned.

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