dispatch

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains that failures never raise (always return a result) and describes timeout behavior. However, it could be more explicit about side effects like state changes in the devcontainer, but overall it gives good insight into behavior.

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 well-structured with a front-loaded purpose, a usage guideline line, and a clear Args/Returns layout. It is concise given the number of parameters and the need for behavioral explanation, though slightly longer than ideal.

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 complexity (5 params, no output schema, sibling tools), the description is complete. It explains the return value format (success/failure fields), when to use this vs dispatch_async, and covers parameter details thoroughly.

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%, but the description thoroughly explains each parameter in the Args section, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. It covers prompt, channel, timeout_seconds, permission_mode, and cwd with usage details.

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 a prompt against Claude Code and returns the result, specifying the verb, resource, and scope. It distinguishes itself from the sibling dispatch_async by mentioning short vs long prompts.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool (for short prompts under ~60s) and when to use the alternative dispatch_async (for longer prompts) to avoid transport ceiling issues. Also explains the channel parameter for session continuity.

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