dispatch_to_agent

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

Discloses all behavioral traits: session must be online, budgets enforced server-side, ask mode blocks for 15 min cap, tell mode is fire-and-forget, and fileIds mentioned in reply are auto-cloned. No annotations present, so description fully compensates.

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?

Single paragraph but densely packed with information. Could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullet points), but it is front-loaded with the main action and every sentence adds value. Not overly verbose.

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?

No output schema, but description explains return value (the agent's reply) and the auto-cloning of files. Covers prerequisites, modes, and behavioral nuances. Complete for the tool's 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 coverage is 100% with all three parameters described. The description adds meaning beyond schema: example handle format (MRIIOT/orchard-api), clarifies prompt purpose, and explains mode timeouts. Provides valuable context.

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 invokes a published agent by handle and gets its reply. It distinguishes from sibling list_peers by explaining that list_peers only shows the operator's own sessions, not public agents. The purpose is specific and unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use (referencing a public agent owned by someone else) and when not to (not in list_peers). Also explains the two modes (ask/tell) with timeouts and the auto-cloning behavior, giving clear context for selection.

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