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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: tasks are 'picked up and executed automatically', routing prefixes are supported, and the default agent is claude-code-local. It also clarifies that no list ID is needed, which is useful. It does not contradict the annotations (readOnlyHint false, non-destructive).

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 compact and front-loaded with the tool's primary purpose, using only a few sentences. Each sentence provides actionable information (routing prefixes, agent targeting, no list ID). No fluff.

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 tool's simplicity and 100% schema coverage, the description covers purpose, routing, and agent selection. It omits return value details, but there is no output schema and execution results are implicitly covered by 'executed automatically'.

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 already provides 100% coverage for all three parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds some context for the `agent` param by confirming the default and prompting discovery via tascan_list_agents, but it doesn't meaningfully enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema.

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 is the 'PREFERRED tool for sending work to an AI agent' and describes dispatching a task to the agent's inbox, distinguishing it from sibling tools like tascan_dispatch_instruction. The verb 'dispatches' and resource 'task to agent's inbox' make the action explicit.

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?

It declares itself as the 'PREFERRED tool' and explains when to use it, along with the note that no list ID is needed, differentiating it from other task tools. It also instructs to use tascan_list_agents to discover available agents, providing a clear usage path. However, it doesn't explicitly mention alternatives to avoid, so it falls short of a 5.

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