generate_router

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It states 'generates' and 'creates', but does not mention whether the operation is destructive, idempotent, requires authentication, or what side effects occur. The output schema exists but is not described.

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 with no fluff, but it is overly brief and sacrifices helpfulness for brevity. It could include parameter guidance or usage notes without being verbose.

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 2 parameters, zero schema descriptions, and lack of annotations, the description is insufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly. The output schema exists but is not elaborated, leaving return behavior unclear.

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?

All 2 parameters (config_pattern, router_name) have zero description coverage in the schema, and the description does not explain their meaning, format, or purpose. The agent cannot infer what values to provide for intelligently routing to sub-skills.

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 it generates a router/hub skill for split documentation and creates intelligent routing to sub-skills. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like build_how_to_guides or split_config, but does not explicitly compare to them.

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 on when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. Only a vague context of 'for split documentation' is given, leaving the agent with insufficient decision criteria.

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