follow_up

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.