generate_router

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states it generates/creates a router but does not specify side effects, permissions needed, rate limits, or whether it writes to a store. This is insufficient for safe invocation.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and contains no redundant information. It is appropriately concise, though the brevity sacrifices parameter and context details.

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?

The tool has an output schema (not shown) and two parameters. The description partly explains the high-level purpose but omits details on output format, prerequisites, and relationship to sibling tools. It is minimally adequate for an agent familiar with the domain but incomplete for new users.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the parameters 'config_pattern' and 'router_name'. Their purpose, format, or allowed values are completely absent, forcing the agent to guess or infer incorrectly.

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 generates a router/hub skill for split documentation and creates intelligent routing to sub-skills. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like split_config or extract_config_patterns. However, the term 'intelligent routing' could be more explicit about the mechanism.

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 use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. Sibling tools like build_how_to_guides or detect_patterns relate to documentation but no comparative context is given.

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