trinity_dispatch

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, so the description adds value by disclosing that it writes to the local task database and may execute the agent command. Also mentions wait behavior with return of final task or timeout error. Does not cover all edge cases but sufficient beyond 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose, then usage guidance, then additional behavioral context. No waste, 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?

Given the complexity (7 params, 2 required, no output schema), the description covers the main behavior, wait functionality, and differentiation. Could mention return format when wait=false, but annotations mitigate the need somewhat.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add meaningful parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., target_agent as 'exact recipient agent id').

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 it creates a durable task for an explicit Trinity agent and runs one worker cycle. The verb 'create' and the resource 'durable task' are specific. It differentiates from the sibling trinity_dispatch_auto by noting this is for when the caller knows the target agent.

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?

Explicitly states when to use this tool: 'Use this when the caller already knows the target agent; use trinity_dispatch_auto when routing should choose the agent.' This provides clear guidance on tool selection among siblings.

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