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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It explains the output and classification logic (delegation difficulty, elicitation signals) but does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or has side effects, nor any limitations or error conditions. The added behavioral context is useful but incomplete.

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 examples, and every sentence provides substantive information. It is concise and well-structured with no wasted words.

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 description provides a strong overview of the tool's functionality and output, and an output schema exists. However, the missing parameter guidance for depth and operator_id, along with no annotations or usage exclusions, leaves the description incomplete for a tool of this complexity despite its clear core explanation.

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%, so the description must compensate. It explains the task_class parameter with examples, but does not mention the depth or operator_id parameters, leaving their semantics undefined. This is a significant gap for two of the three parameters.

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 decomposes a high-level task class into specific steps with detailed attributes (knowledge requirements, judgment requirements, delegation difficulty, etc.). It uses a specific verb 'decompose' and resource 'task class', with examples, and distinguishes its output (immediately delegable vs elicitation-first vs expert-only) from related tools.

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 implies usage when you have a high-level task class and need to break it down for delegation planning, and it explicitly mentions what it identifies. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, so it provides clear context without exclusions.

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