Bernstein - Multi-agent orchestration

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden and does well by disclosing key behavioral traits: it creates a new subtask, automatically transitions the parent task to WAITING_FOR_SUBTASKS status, and returns specific JSON fields. It doesn't mention error conditions, permissions, or rate limits, but covers the core mutation behavior adequately.

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 well-structured with clear sections (purpose, usage context, parameters, returns) and every sentence adds value. It could be slightly more concise by integrating the usage context into the opening statement, but overall it's efficiently organized.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, 7 parameters, and 0% schema coverage, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, usage context, detailed parameter semantics, and return values. The presence of an output schema means the description doesn't need to detail return structure, which it appropriately references without over-explaining.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing detailed semantics for all 7 parameters. It explains what each parameter means (e.g., 'priority: 1=critical, 2=normal, 3=nice-to-have'), including enum-like values for scope and complexity, and clarifies that estimated_minutes can be null.

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 specific action ('Create a subtask linked to a parent task') and distinguishes it from siblings by specifying it's for decomposing work during execution. It explicitly mentions the parent task status transition to WAITING_FOR_SUBTASKS, which is unique to this tool.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Agents call this to decompose their current work into subtasks during execution'). It also implicitly distinguishes from siblings by focusing on subtask creation rather than approval, cost checking, or task listing operations available in other tools.

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