delegate_analysis

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the external model cannot inspect files beyond the supplied context and cannot modify the workspace, which are critical safety and scope constraints. It could mention data privacy or network dependencies, but the key behavioral traits are effectively conveyed.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action, followed by use cases and limitations. Every sentence adds unique value, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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 tool's moderate complexity (external model call, 5 parameters) and the presence of an output schema, the description provides adequate context: purpose, use cases, and key limitations. It does not explain potential async behavior, cost implications, or failure modes, but those are not essential for basic selection and invocation, especially with the output schema present.

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 only 40%, so the description should compensate for undocumented parameters. The description clarifies the purpose of the context parameter ('cannot inspect files beyond the supplied context') and implicitly explains the provider parameter by naming Codex, Grok, and DeepSeek. However, it does not elaborate on reasoning_effort or max_output_tokens, which remain vague without additional schema descriptions.

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Ask Codex, Grok, or local DeepSeek for independent analysis.' It also lists concrete use cases (debugging hypotheses, architecture evaluation, repository reasoning, second opinion) that distinguish it from siblings like delegate_review and delegate_patch.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use for debugging hypotheses, architecture evaluation, repository reasoning, or a second opinion') and provides clear context for its applicability. It does not name alternative tools or include explicit when-not-to-use conditions, but the use-case list is sufficiently specific to guide an agent.

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