dispatch_parallel_subagents

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose two meaningful behaviors: execution is concurrent, and only a compact shortlist is returned rather than full results. It does not mention costs, side effects on research state, error behavior, or whether details are discarded, so transparency is partial.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates the core action, the parallelism, and the output reduction in one compact statement.

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 a complex orchestration tool with nested SubagentTask definitions, two required conceptual elements, and many sibling research tools, this description is too thin. It does not explain how research_id relates to tasks, what happens if tasks is null, or how to construct useful subagent tasks, leaving the agent with significant ambiguity.

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%, and the description adds almost no parameter-level meaning: it does not explain research_id, tasks, or how tasks map to 'retrieval tracks'. The only indirect hint is that tasks correspond to independent retrieval tracks, which is too weak to compensate for the undocumented research_id and optional tasks parameter.

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 a specific action — executing independent retrieval tracks concurrently — and names the output artifact, a compact review shortlist. It is clear at a surface level, though it relies somewhat on the tool name 'subagents' and the vague phrase 'retrieval tracks' to convey what is being dispatched.

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 'independent retrieval tracks' implies this tool is appropriate when sub-tasks can run in parallel, which gives some usage context. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no comparison to siblings like discovery_search or screen_sources, and no mention of when NOT to use it.

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