spawn

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.