llm_decompose_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully reveals that the tool is a legacy compatibility API and that it routes via the Needle planner when MITOSIS_AGENT_ENABLED=true. However, it does not explain what happens when the flag is false, potential side effects, or error behavior.

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 action and output stated immediately. The parenthetical legacy/routing note is informative without adding fluff. Every segment earns 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?

The tool is simple, and the description covers the core function and output shape, but the lack of an output schema and annotations means more contextual detail is needed. The description leaves unclear the default (non-MITOSIS) behavior and when an agent should prefer a non-legacy sibling tool, so completeness is adequate but incomplete.

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 as 'The complex task or objective to decompose.' The description's phrase 'complex goal' adds no new semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 a specific verb and object: 'Decompose a complex goal into ordered subtasks with recommended tool categories.' This is distinct from general query tools like llm_query or llm_summarize, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from similar planning siblings.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as llm_suggest_route or generate_route_suggestions. The 'Legacy compat API' label hints at a compatibility role, but it does not state a preferred alternative or a clear selection condition.

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