Delegate a subtask to GLM

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

Description discloses that GLM has no file/tool access (beyond annotations), cost comparison, and that output is text only. It does not detail potential side effects, but annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) provide baseline; the description adds context.

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 dense sentences: first covers purpose and cost, second states limitations and alternatives. No redundant words, front-loaded with key info.

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?

Description covers purpose, limitations, alternatives, and parameter usage. No output schema exists, but 'returns text only' is sufficient. Missing details on error handling, but overall adequate for typical use.

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 has 100% coverage, but the description adds value by advising 'put everything in task+context' and emphasizing self-contained instructions. This clarity goes beyond basic 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 it is for delegating a text-in/text-out subtask to GLM, highlights cost advantage over Opus, and distinguishes from sibling 'glm_agent' for file edits.

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 says when to use (simple text subtasks) and when not to ('Not for sensitive, long-debugging, large-refactor, or parallel work'), and recommends 'glm_agent' for file edits.

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