apk_dispatch

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that agents run 'in wave order' and that the case must already exist, but it does not disclose side effects, whether the operation is synchronous or asynchronous, whether the case is modified, or any permission or safety considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to the meaning, and the verb + object structure makes the purpose immediately scannable.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is still under-specified for a tool with no annotations, multiple siblings, and no explicit usage conditions. It leaves 'wave order' undefined, does not explain expected agent input values, and gives no guidance on how this relates to apk_orchestrate or apk_list_agents, making it incomplete for confident tool selection and 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 0%, so the description must compensate. It does add meaning by tying 'selected specialist agents' to the agents parameter and 'existing case' to case_dir, which goes beyond the bare schema titles. However, it does not explain accepted values, formats, or the meaning of the default null for agents, so it only partially compensates.

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 clearly states a specific action ('Run'), a resource ('specialist agents'), and a condition ('against an existing case'). It communicates the core purpose well, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling apk_orchestrate, so it falls short of a 5.

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 phrase 'against an existing case' implies the tool should be used only after a case exists, which is useful contextual guidance. However, there is no explicit mention of when not to use it, no reference to alternatives like apk_orchestrate or apk_create_case, and no guidance on prerequisites such as first listing available agents.

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