route_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that the tool is non-committal (preview only, no job launch), which is a key safety trait. Yet it omits other behavioral facets such as side effects (e.g., logging, state changes), authentication needs, or any rate limiting considerations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action ('Preview automatic worker selection') and immediately qualifies the scope ('without launching a job'). Every word earns its place, with no redundancy.

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?

Although the output schema exists, the description does not explain how the four input parameters influence worker selection or how to use this preview effectively. Given the presence of many sibling tools and no annotations, the description is too sparse to fully orient an agent, especially regarding parameter roles and expected behavior beyond the preview itself.

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 provides zero description coverage (0%) and the tool description offers no explanation of what each parameter does. The parameters 'prompt', 'agent_name', 'exclude_agents', and 'required_capabilities' remain opaque, leaving the agent with no semantic guidance for constructing valid calls.

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 uses a specific verb ('Preview') and resource ('automatic worker selection'), immediately clarifying the tool's function. The qualifier 'without launching a job' strongly distinguishes it from delegation tasks, such as the sibling 'delegate_task', making the purpose unambiguous.

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 phrase 'without launching a job' implies a preview-before-execution workflow, offering some contextual guidance. However, it does not explicitly name any alternative tools or state when to use this tool versus actually launching a job, leaving the routing decision partially inferred.

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