Comment on: ADR-005: Multi-Model, Multi-Provider, and Tool Strategy

Hi! I'd like to work on this. My understanding is that the current model routing system (ADR-004) scores models based on capabilities but assumes universal tool compatibility, which leads to silent failures and degraded context when switching providers. It lacks a declarative way to express provider constraints (like image support or schema limits) and tool requirements. I'm planning to fix it by implementing the Phase 1-3 roadmap described in the ADR: building the `ProviderCapabilities` registry in `pi-ai` to replace scattered provider-specific logic, adding `ToolCompatibility` metadata to `ToolDefinition`, and integrating the new hard-filtering step into `resolveModelForComplexity()` before the ADR-004 capability scoring. I will also build out the `ProviderSwitchReport` for cross-provider context tracking. This will be a substantial architectural lift across the core packages. Does this approach sound good?