nexus_subagent_spawn

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return contract (batch ID), the parallel nature of the spawned tasks, and the important lifecycle detail that execution happens later via nexus_subagent_run. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or cost implications, but the core behavioral contract is clear.

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 dense, front-loaded sentences with no filler. The first sentence states what the tool does; the second explains the task composition and points to the next tool. Every clause contributes useful information.

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 is complete enough for correct invocation: required task fields are covered by the schema, and the description explains the return value and the next step. Minor gaps remain around failure modes, status checking, and permissions, but these do not block an agent from using the tool correctly.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents the tasks array, timeoutMs, and nested fields like prompt, provider, model, role, maxTokens, temperature, and systemPrompt. The description adds high-level context about "one or more" tasks and parallel execution, but it does not need to repeat parameter details. Baseline 3 applies.

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 starts with a specific action and resource: "Spawn one or more AI subagent tasks for parallel execution." It clearly explains what each task targets (provider/model/prompt) and what the tool returns (batch ID), making it easy to distinguish from the sibling nexus_subagent_run, which is the execution step.

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 workflow guidance by explicitly telling the agent to use nexus_subagent_run to execute the spawned batch. It does not spell out when to avoid this tool in favor of nexus_subagent_collab or nexus_subagent_status, but the parallel-batch framing gives sufficient context for most calls.

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