forgehand_delegate

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

The description goes beyond annotations by explaining that commands inherit host permissions and network, risk acknowledgement is required when commands are present, required command IDs must all exit zero for success, and the worker is bound to the scope. Annotations carry destructiveHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds important context about the command execution model without contradicting the annotations.

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 compact, front-loaded with the primary purpose in the first sentence, and every sentence adds operational detail without redundancy. It covers command execution semantics, safety, and success conditions in about 60 words.

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 the tool's complexity (14 parameters, command execution, security considerations) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the most critical operational context. It doesn't explain every parameter but the essentials for safe and correct invocation — registration prerequisite, scope limitations, command execution model, and success criteria — are present. An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained.

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 by explaining parameter semantics. It explains the significance of scope, commands, risk acknowledgement, and required command IDs, which maps to key parameters. Not every parameter is individually explained (edit_mode, base_revision, etc.), but the core ones an agent needs to invoke correctly are covered.

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 the tool runs 'one complete implementation task' with bounded files and commands, distinguishing it from sibling tools like forgehand_health, forgehand_tasks, and forgehand_result which are inspection/retrieval tools. The verb 'Run' plus the resource and scope constraint makes the purpose explicit.

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 gives clear context for use: repository must be registered first, scope bounds what the worker may access, and commands are supervisor-authored. It doesn't explicitly name sibling alternatives or when not to use this tool, but the distinction from the health/tasks/result siblings is implied by the delegation purpose.

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