nexus_subagent_collab

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states that execution is sequential, that intermediate steps are retained, and that both final and intermediate outputs are returned. It does not mention async behavior, costs, or failure handling, but the core behavioral contract is transparent.

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?

Two sentences with no filler. The pipeline concept is front-loaded, followed by the ordering behavior and return format, so an agent grasps the essential information immediately.

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 two-parameter tool with a thoroughly described schema, the description covers input semantics, process ordering, and return value. It could be more complete by clarifying whether execution is synchronous and how it relates to the subagent status/run siblings, but nothing critical is missing for basic invocation.

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 100%, and the schema already documents task, models, provider, model, role, maxTokens, temperature, and systemPrompt. The description adds ordering semantics, but the models property schema already states that the list is ordered and that later roles review/refine/synthesize, so the added value is limited.

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 identifies a specific workflow: sequential multi-model collaboration with first-model production, review/refinement, and optional synthesis. This distinguishes it from parallel collaboration siblings like nexus_council or nexus_agent_multi, though it does not name them explicitly.

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 when to use it: multi-stage sequential tasks where one model's output is refined by another. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it contrast with alternatives that also handle multi-model or multi-agent collaboration.

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