derive_subgoal

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

No annotations present, so description carries burden. It discloses defaults (status='active') and side effects (drafts surface in dashboard pending queue). Missing details on permissions or impact on parent, but still adds significant context.

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?

Three sentences, no wasted words. First sentence states purpose, second gives alternative, third gives usage nuance. Excellent structure.

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 8 parameters, high schema coverage, no output schema or annotations, the description covers purpose, alternative, status behavior, and pending queue. Lacks return value description, but overall sufficient for a creation tool.

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 63% (high), so baseline is 3. Description adds value by explaining that rationale 'becomes the description' and 'surfaces in human review', and clarifies status usage. Does not explain all enums but compensates.

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 explicitly states 'Create a sub-goal under an existing parent goal' and distinguishes from 'create_goal' for top-level goals. The verb and resource are clear.

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?

It explicitly says when not to use it ('For a new top-level goal, use create_goal instead') and provides conditional guidance for status ('pass 'draft' for autonomous loops').

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