Delegate across specialties

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning 'workforce/FLAG invoke hints' and acceptance criteria, which reveals the output nature. It does not contradict annotations.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a concise usage hint. No filler or repetition.

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?

For a planning tool with no output schema, it conveys purpose, usage context, and key output elements. It lacks a comparison to sibling tools but is reasonably complete for its complexity.

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 all four parameters having descriptions in the schema. The tool description itself does not elaborate on parameters, so per the rubric it relies on the high schema coverage; baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Manager-style work breakdown' that determines 'which specialty owns which slice, in what order, with acceptance criteria and workforce/FLAG invoke hints.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_roles or handoff by focusing on decomposition and ownership assignment.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use after discuss or when the user asks who should do what.' It gives the trigger context but does not name alternatives or when not to use, so it falls short of a 5.

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