delegate_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions delegation to a headless CLI agent but lacks details on execution behavior (e.g., synchronous/asynchronous, background processing, side effects, error handling). The background parameter hints at async behavior, but the description does not confirm or elaborate.

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 sentence, which is concise, but it omits critical information that could be added without significant verbosity. It is not structured with separate sections for usage or parameters, making it minimally adequate.

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 has 6 parameters (2 required) and an output schema, but the description ignores return values, parameter dependencies, and the delegation workflow. The list of sibling tools suggests a task management context, but the description provides no integration guidance. Overall incomplete for a tool of this complexity.

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 adds no explanation of parameters. It lists example agents but does not clarify the 'agent' parameter format, constraints, or how 'model', 'write', 'agent_name', and 'background' affect behavior. The description entirely fails to compensate for missing schema descriptions.

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 verb 'Delegate' and the resource 'task', listing specific headless CLI agents (codex, claude, gemini, cursor, aider, grok), which differentiates it from sibling tools like job_status and job_cancel that manage tasks rather than delegating them.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. Sibling tools suggest task management, but no comparative context is given.

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