Squad Research

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

With no annotations provided, the description clearly discloses the delegated execution model: 'returns the Squad Coordinator persona, the matched routing row, and a framed dispatch request; the calling host runs the subagent loop.' It also reveals routing details (researcher role, auto tier, parallel-eligible), which are non-obvious behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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?

Four sentences, each serving a distinct purpose: purpose, routing, execution model, and usage triggers. No redundancy or filler. The density is appropriate for a tool with complex delegation behavior.

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 7 parameters and no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining what the caller receives. It does so clearly (persona, routing row, dispatch request) and describes the execution flow. It could add error-handling or prerequisites, but the current description is sufficient for 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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema's own descriptions; it only broadly frames the request as a 'question or codebase.' No meaningful added semantic value.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run the squad's research stage on a question or codebase.' It distinguishes from siblings by noting this happens 'before any plan or change' and lists concrete trigger phrases ('research', 'investigate', 'explore', 'find out'), making the tool's purpose unmistakable.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance via trigger phrases and positions the tool as the precursor to planning/change ('before any plan or change'). It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives, but the 'before' phrasing implies exclusions, and the sibling list provides context.

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