delegate

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

With no annotations, the description discloses that it uses a 'cheap worker model' and advises to 'Review the result before acting on it', indicating the output may need verification. It also implies self-contained subtasks, suggesting no dependencies. It doesn't cover rate limits or auth, but for a delegation tool this is adequate.

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 sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and a clear list of use cases. No fluff. Every word 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?

No output schema, but the description gives enough to know what the tool does and cautions to review results. It doesn't describe return format or error handling, but given the tool's simplicity, it's sufficient.

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 80%, so most parameters are documented. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond the schema, so it doesn't enhance understanding of the parameters.

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 states 'Hand a self-contained subtask to a cheap worker model' which is a clear verb+resource. It lists specific use cases like 'bulk reading/summarizing, boilerplate, tests' which helps differentiate from worker_stats and delegate_batch, though it doesn't explicitly name the 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?

It explicitly lists appropriate use cases ('bulk reading/summarizing, boilerplate, tests, mechanical edits as diffs, first drafts, or a second opinion') and advises to 'Review the result before acting on it.' It does not mention alternatives or exclusions, but the context is clear enough to guide an agent.

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