decompose_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the output format (boundary identification, independence verification, etc.) and that it returns a protocol. It does not mention side effects or safety, but given it returns a protocol for decomposition, it is fairly transparent.

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 very concise: two sentences followed by a bulleted list of return items. Every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded with the alias and core action.

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 no output schema, the description explains the return types adequately. It covers the tool's purpose, usage condition, and parameter semantics. Sibling tool jambavan_vibhaajan is referenced, providing context. It is reasonably complete.

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 adds extra context: for 'units' it notes 'optional — protocol helps you find the right number', and for 'constraints' it lists examples like shared state, file overlap, ordering requirements, adding value beyond the 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 clearly states it is a functional alias for jambavan_vibhaajan and explicitly describes the action: returning a parallel work decomposition protocol. It specifies the resource ('task') and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting the alias and when to call.

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 states when to call: 'when a task has sub-units that can proceed independently (different files, no shared state).' It also mentions applicability to both multi-agent and solo scenarios. While it doesn't explicitly state when not to use, the condition is clear enough.

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