dispersl_plan_agent

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 doesn't disclose whether this dispatches/spawns sub-agents, whether execution is synchronous or asynchronous, side effects, or what happens with the required prompt and agent_choice. 'Dispersion' hints at spawning work but is never explained.

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 short, but the second sentence is grammatically broken ('can either be use...') and redundant. It's front-loaded with the purpose but wastes its limited space on awkward phrasing rather than useful detail.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested 'mcp' object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is far too thin. It should explain the relationship between prompt and agent_choice, the role of context/knowledge/memory, and the dispersion behavior, but covers none of it.

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 0% across 8 parameters. The description only enumerates the four possible agent_choice values, leaving prompt, model, memory, context, task_id, knowledge, and mcp entirely undocumented. Enum-like values for agent_choice are hinted, but not as formal schema constraints, and 7 of 8 params get no help.

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 'Multi-agent task dispersion using agentic execution (plan agent)' and lists agent choice values, giving some sense of a planning/dispersion operation. However, 'task dispersion' is jargon that doesn't precisely define the action, and it's unclear how this differs from the many sibling agent tools (dispersl_code_agent, dispersl_testing_agent, etc.) or create_task.

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 says what agent choices exist ('code', 'test', 'git', 'docs') but gives no guidance on when to use this plan agent vs. the sibling per-domain agent tools or create_task. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use, and no routing to alternatives.

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