dispatch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does add a valuable constraint: Cursor local backends can only edit files inside the write allowlist. However, it does not describe what dispatch returns, whether a run is created asynchronously, or other side effects beyond the schema's wait parameter.

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 filler. The main purpose comes first, followed by routing guidance and a critical constraint. Every sentence earns its place.

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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides solid orientation: the single-specialist scope, the chat_send alternative, and the filesystem restriction. It falls short of full completeness because it never explains what a successful dispatch returns or how to interpret the run outcome, though the schema's wait parameter partially covers polling behavior.

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 11 parameters already described meaningfully. The description adds no new parameter-level detail except reinforcing the cwd allowlist constraint, so the baseline score 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 action ('Send a task to one specialist') and differentiates itself from chat_send, which auto-routes natural language. This makes the core purpose immediately identifiable and distinguishes it from the closest sibling.

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 explicitly says 'Prefer chat_send for natural language so the orchestrator auto-routes (including round-table debate)', giving clear guidance on when the alternative should be used. It also warns about the write allowlist for Cursor local backends, which is directly relevant to using dispatch.

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