delegate_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only mentions context preservation and zero-token overhead, but fails to explicitly state that the tool can modify files, run terminal commands, or have other side effects. The mutating nature is implied by 'coding task' but not clearly disclosed. This is a significant gap for a tool that delegates autonomous coding.

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 concise sentences with no filler. The purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds a key feature (context preservation). Every word earns its place.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is inadequate. It does not explain return behavior, potential risks, or when to use it. It omits practical guidance on timeouts, agent selection, or session management. The schema covers parameters, but the description fails to provide the high-level context needed for safe and effective 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 description coverage is 100%, so all parameters are well-documented in the schema. The description adds overall context about conversation continuity, which relates to session_id and one_off, but does not provide parameter-specific insights beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate because the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 a specific action ('Delegate') with a resource ('coding task, bug fix, architectural refactor, or test implementation') and a specific target ('local autonomous CLI coding agent'). It names the supported agents (Claude Code, Antigravity, Codex, Cursor), making the purpose unambiguous even without looking at the schema.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus siblings like delegate_ask or agy_task. The description mentions context preservation but does not explain when to choose this over a simpler ask or when not to use it. The schema's mode enum hints at usage, but the description itself offers no decision criteria.

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