sc:spawn

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden. It mentions 'spawning and intelligent coordination' but does not disclose side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the operation is destructive. The input schema hints at flags like --parallel and --merge, but the description does not explain their behavioral implications.

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 a single sentence, highly concise. However, the parenthetical '(Category: operations, Priority: IMPORTANT)' could be omitted or placed in annotations, slightly reducing its efficiency. Overall, it is well-structured and front-loaded with the main concept.

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?

Given no output schema and a complex tool that spawns agents, the description is too sparse. It does not explain what the tool returns, how coordination works, or how to interpret the flags. For a tool with 20 siblings, more context is needed to ensure 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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add much beyond the schema; it includes 'Category: operations, Priority: IMPORTANT' which is not parameter-specific. The schema itself describes 'input' as 'SuperClaude v4.0.9 command input with optional flags,' which is reasonably informative. Hence, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 'Specialized agent spawning and intelligent coordination' lacks a specific verb and resource, making it vague. It does not clarify what 'spawning' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like sc:analyze or sc:brainstorm. The inclusion of 'Category: operations, Priority: IMPORTANT' does not compensate for the lack of clear purpose.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when not to use it. The description only labels it as 'operations,' which is insufficient for an agent to decide between this and many other sc:* tools.

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