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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the prior conversation is preserved, cost is lower than a fresh agent, and the target agent must be in a finished state (implying a failure mode otherwise). It stops short of describing error behavior, return values, or whether the turn is synchronous.

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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The capability statement comes first, then the alternative routing, then the precondition — correctly front-loaded for fast scanning.

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 no output schema, the description supplies the precondition, the context-preservation semantic, the cost rationale, and the sibling alternative. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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% — both 'id' (short agent id, e.g. ag_7f3k2m) and 'prompt' are documented in the schema. The description adds no format, binding, or constraint detail beyond it, so the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Send another turn to an existing agent') and immediately differentiates from siblings by naming both spawn (fresh agent) and steer (live run). An agent can place this tool precisely without opening any other schema.

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?

Explicit routing rules: use this instead of spawn when work builds on prior context, and use steer for a live run. It also states the hard precondition ('The agent must have finished'), so both when-to-use and when-not-to-use are covered.

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

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it discloses the output shape (one line per tool call, not a transcript), that the reply names the full transcript file, and a cost/effort warning against reading the full file. It omits failure modes (unknown id, agent still running beyond the includeResult hint) and any blocking/rate-limit 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?

Three tight sentences with zero filler. The core scoping claim ('compact digest … not a transcript') is front-loaded, and each following sentence adds a distinct operational instruction (incremental since, fallback to transcript).

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must convey return behavior — and it does: digest granularity plus the transcript filename it returns. Combined with full schema param coverage, an agent has enough to call it correctly, though per-parameter nuances (e.g. includeResult only applying to finished agents) live solely in the schema.

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%, so the schema already documents `id`, `since`, and `includeResult`. The description restates the incremental-polling intent of `since` but adds no format, range, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 names a specific verb and resource (show what one agent has done) and immediately bounds the scope with 'one agent' and 'a compact digest — one line per tool call, not a transcript.' That clearly separates it from a raw transcript reader, though it never names a sibling such as list or wait to disambiguate the agent-scoped vs. fleet-scoped view.

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 gives concrete usage guidance: pass the `since` value from a prior call for incremental polling, and read the full transcript with shell tools 'only if the digest is genuinely insufficient' — an explicit when-not-to-go-deeper rule. It stops short of naming alternatives like wait or follow_up for monitoring, and gives no guidance on invalid or finished agents.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the return fields and one-line-per-agent format, which partially substitutes for the missing output schema, but says nothing about ordering, pagination, limits, or auth requirements.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the resource and return content, with zero filler. Every clause 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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers what the tool returns and its format. The remaining gap is behavioral (ordering, filtering interaction with scope), but nothing critical is missing.

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%, with both scope (enum, default documented) and activeOnly fully explained in the schema. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 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?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (agents), and enumerates the returned fields (state, elapsed time, cost, latest activity). Against siblings like inspect and spawn, the plural enumeration and 'One line each' clearly mark it as the overview tool, though it never names the contrasting sibling 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?

No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative is stated. 'One line each' hints at a summary role versus the detail-oriented inspect sibling, but the routing decision is left entirely to inference.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden and does so well: detached execution, immediate return, zero shared context with the caller, automatic honoring of AGENTS.md/.cursor/rules/.agents/skills/.cursor/mcp.json, and notification-on-exit instead of polling. It omits auth/permission requirements and failure/error behavior, which is why it is not a 5.

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?

Front-loads the core action and return contract in the first sentence, then layers in the briefing requirement and the mandatory post-spawn attach step. Dense and slightly run-on, but each sentence carries a distinct, non-redundant instruction.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description compensates by documenting return values (agent id, attachCommand, attachDescription), the required follow-up call, and the completion signal. That is enough for an agent to invoke and sequence the tool correctly; failure handling is the only notable gap.

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 baseline is 3, but the description still adds meaning: it reinforces that `prompt` must name files, goal, and verification (beyond the schema's 'Self-contained brief') and confirms the default model is Grok. The other six parameters' semantics are left entirely to 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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delegate a task to a Cursor agent ... running detached in the background') with precise semantics ('Returns immediately with an agent id — it does NOT wait'). The explicit non-waiting framing functionally separates it from the sibling `wait`, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear operational context: use it to delegate a self-contained brief, then run the returned attachCommand with run_in_background:true, and 'do not poll' because exit notifies you. It never names alternatives (follow_up, steer, stop) or states when not to delegate, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that the operation is non-terminating and mid-run only, but says nothing about what happens if the agent is idle/finished (error? queued?), whether injection is delivered immediately or at the next turn boundary, or whether repeated calls are allowed.

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 tight sentences, action and rationale front-loaded, with zero filler. Every clause carries weight.

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 action tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does, when to use it, and why over an alternative. The main remaining gap is failure/edge behavior when the target agent is not running, which is minor at this 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with both 'id' (example format ag_7f3k2m) and 'text' documented in the schema itself. The description adds no syntax, format, or constraint detail beyond what the schema already carries, so the 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?

Names a precise verb+resource: inject a message into a running agent's turn. It immediately distinguishes itself from the stop sibling by stating it works 'without killing its work', so an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly says to 'use this to correct course mid-run' and names an alternative (stopping and re-prompting) with a claim of superiority. It does not draw the boundary against the sibling 'follow_up' (presumably for after a run ends), so the exclusions are incomplete.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does disclose the non-obvious fact that cancellation is not terminal — the agent remains resumable via follow_up. It does not say what happens to in-flight work, whether cancellation is graceful, or what permissions are needed, so it is helpful but not complete.

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 short sentences with zero filler; the action is front-loaded and the resumability caveat follows immediately. Every clause 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?

For a one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers what it does and the key follow-on behavior. What is missing is minor — side effects on in-flight execution and any preconditions — but nothing prevents correct 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 single id parameter is well documented in the schema ("Short agent id, e.g. ag_7f3k2m"). The description adds no additional meaning about the id, so the baseline of 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?

Specific verb ("Cancel") plus specific resource ("an agent's current run"), so the operation is unambiguous. It also names follow_up as the contrasting sibling, letting an agent separate cancellation from resumption without opening either schema.

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 clearly frames the use case (halt an in-progress run) and points to follow_up for the resumption case, giving usable routing context. It stops short of stating explicit exclusions, e.g. when wait or steer would be preferred over stopping.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does well: it discloses the critical behavioral trait that this blocks the entire agent turn, and that a timeout yields partial progress rather than an empty result. It does not cover what happens with invalid/unknown ids or concurrent blocking calls, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by the cost warning and the alternative. No redundant restatement of the name or schema.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must hint at returns; it explains the timeout case but not the shape of a successful return (e.g., results per agent). The blocking-cost warning compensates for much of the rest, making this nearly complete for a 3-parameter tool.

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%, so ids, mode, and timeoutSec (with defaults and max) are already fully documented, establishing the baseline of 3. The description's note about timeout returning progress adds behavioral context for timeoutSec but no new parameter semantics.

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?

States a specific verb (block/wait) and resource (named agents) with an explicit completion condition. An agent can distinguish this from spawn, steer, stop, and inspect without opening any schema.

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?

Explicitly says when NOT to use it ('prefer the background-task bridge from spawn') and narrows the acceptable condition to 'only when there is genuinely nothing else to do.' It names the alternative tool and the selecting condition, which is exactly what usage guidance should do.

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