delegate_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the task is pending, automatically picked up by the Brain Bridge Extension, and executed via a headless cascade, revealing key asynchronous behavior. It doesn't cover rate limits, auth needs, or failure modes, but the most important non-obvious behavior is addressed.

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 three sentences, each providing distinct value: action, mechanism/behavior, and monitoring guidance. It is front-loaded and concise, with every sentence earning its place.

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?

For a simple 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, async behavior, and monitoring approach. It doesn't mention return values or error conditions, but the essential workflow is clear and sufficient for the tool's complexity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters ('task' and 'cwd'), so the schema already documents their meaning. The description adds no extra parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema, which is acceptable given the full schema coverage.

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+resource: 'Delegate a task to a new child conversation,' and elaborates on the mechanism ('headless cascade'). It clearly differentiates from sibling tools by focusing on delegation and referencing check_task_result for monitoring, making its purpose unmistakable.

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 provides clear context that the tool creates a pending task executed asynchronously, and instructs the user to 'Use check_task_result to monitor progress,' which acts as a follow-up guideline. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools for similar purposes.

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