send_task

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint false, idempotentHint false), the description reveals no additional behavioral details such as asynchronous execution, queuing, or timeout behavior. The schema hints at these via the wait parameter, but the description text adds nothing beyond what annotations already convey.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that states the action and target without extraneous words. It is appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 is simple and the schema provides solid parameter documentation, but the description lacks broader context about where this fits in the task lifecycle. With 15 sibling tools, a brief note on when to send a task versus other operations would make the description more complete.

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%, with all three parameters (prompt, wait, metadata) documented. The description itself contributes no parameter-level meaning, so it relies on the schema. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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 action ('Send') and the target ('the Hermes agent a task'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. It does not explicitly distinguish from the sibling 'request' tool, but the resource and verb are specific enough to convey the core function.

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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like get_task or cancel_task. The input schema mentions polling get_task for long tasks, but that context is not present in the description itself, leaving the agent without usage boundaries.

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