prompt_split_execute

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses that the tool runs subtasks in dependency order, dispatches to sub-agents, passes results between tasks, and enforces rate limits. It also mentions dry_run for preview. However, it doesn't explicitly state potential side effects or whether this tool is destructive.

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 three sentences, efficiently front-loading the primary purpose and then covering optional inputs and dry_run. Every sentence adds unique value with no redundancy or fluff.

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 the tool's complexity (multi-step execution, dependencies, rate limits) and absence of an output schema, the description omits crucial details about return values, error handling, or execution results. While dry_run output is hinted, the actual execution output format is not described, leaving a gap for agents.

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%, but the description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains the conditional relationship between 'plan' and 'prompt' (if no plan, prompt is used to generate one), and elaborates on overrides (change agent/model/prompt per task or skip). This helps the agent understand parameter usage beyond formal definitions.

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 tool's purpose: executing a prompt_split plan, running subtasks in dependency order, dispatching to sub-agents, and enforcing rate limits. It distinguishes from sibling tools like prompt_split (which generates plans) and direct run tools, but could be more explicit about when to use this versus individual run tools.

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 explains when to use the tool: provide a 'plan' or a 'prompt', and optionally use 'overrides' to modify per-task settings. However, it does not specify when not to use this tool (e.g., for single-step tasks) or explicitly mention alternatives among sibling tools like claude_run.

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