runClaudeTask

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

The description discloses that the tool enqueues a task (mutation) and returns either a taskId or streams output. Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true). The description adds value by explaining the return behavior, but lacks details on queue behavior, rate limits, or side effects. Adequate but not rich.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and outcome. Every word earns its place. No fluff.

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?

The tool has 11 parameters (complex) and no output schema. The description only mentions return type (taskId or stream) but does not describe error cases, response format, or side effects. For a complex tool, this is incomplete.

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 the baseline is 3. The tool description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what is already in the schema. The naming and schema descriptions are sufficient.

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 action ('Enqueue Claude subprocess task') and the resource. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning taskId for status queries and stream mode for blocking, which directly contrasts with getClaudeTaskStatus and cancelClaudeTask.

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 provides context for when to use this tool (enqueue a task) and offers two usage paths (async with taskId vs stream). It implicitly contrasts with siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or alternatives beyond the one sibling.

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