parallel_agents

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It reveals key behaviors: task decomposition, phased parallel execution (RED then GREEN), and quality-driven iteration. However, it omits potential side effects (e.g., file writing is parameterized but not mentioned in description) and edge cases.

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 concise with two sentences; the first sentence is front-loaded with core purpose, and the second adds relevant detail. No unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured.

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 6 parameters with 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the primary workflow (decomposition, parallelism, quality iteration). However, it lacks information on return values, error behavior, and prerequisites, which would enhance completeness.

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 coverage is 100% with clear parameter descriptions. The description adds workflow context (decomposition, RED/GREEN phases) that helps understand parameters like 'iterate_until_quality' and 'max_iterations', but it does not provide additional parameter-specific insights beyond the schema.

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's function: executing multiple TDD agents in parallel with quality gate iteration. It details decomposition of high-level tasks, parallel execution groups (RED before GREEN), and iterative quality review, making it distinct from siblings like 'council' or 'dual_iterate'.

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 implies use for high-level tasks that benefit from parallel TDD with quality gates, but it lacks explicit guidance on when to use vs. alternatives, when not to use, or prerequisites. No sibling differentiation is provided.

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