agent_dispatch

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

Given no annotations, the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions the ERE gate but does not describe what happens on gate failure, required permissions, side effects, or return behavior. The tool could be destructive or have rate limits, but this is not addressed.

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 concise sentences, front-loaded with purpose and key operational detail (ERE gate). No wasted words.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description misses critical information like return format, error handling, and the ERE gate's behavior. It is adequate but has clear gaps for a tool that dispatches tasks.

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 descriptions for both parameters exist (100% coverage), so the description does not need to add much. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline of 3.

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 it dispatches a task to a registered proxy tool or sovereign agent, using a specific verb and resource. It mentions the ERE gate, adding operational context, and distinguishes from sibling tools by focusing on dispatching rather than verification or registration.

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 usage for sending tasks to proxies or agents, but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like compute_route or ere_verify. No when-not-to-use or alternative tool mentions.

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