Delegate a request to Hermes

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

With only openWorldHint=true in annotations, the description bears the burden of explaining runtime behavior. It mentions 'bridge policy' and external automation, hinting at side effects, but it does not disclose that this may invoke remote services, require approval, run long, or return job handles. No rate limits, execution model, or side-effect details are provided.

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 sentences with no waste, and the exclusion is useful. However, the first sentence is a long list of capabilities without a clear verb or object structure; it reads more like a label than a structured explanation. It is concise but sacrifices clarity for brevity.

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 tool with 10 parameters, no output schema, and only open-world hint, the description is far from complete. It does not mention the required prompt, the meaning of modes, presets, or expected return behavior. The agent cannot reliably invoke this tool correctly based on the current definition.

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 0% and the description provides no insight into any of the 10 parameters, including the required prompt. It does not explain mode, yolo, model, dryRun, preset, maxTurns, provider, contextFiles, or timeoutSeconds. The agent gets no help beyond the raw schema.

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 clear action: use Hermes for its owned skills, connected services, browser workflows, messaging, schedules, or external automation. It distinguishes this from ordinary local code edits, which gives a definite scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the many sibling Hermes tools such as hermes_plan, hermes_submit, or hermes_prepare.

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 one clear exclusion (do not use for ordinary local code edits) and a positive list of use cases, so an agent has some when-to-use guidance. But it offers no explicit alternatives or conditions for choosing between this and the sibling Hermes tools, so the guidance is incomplete.

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