run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses the most consequential trait: the call blocks until the delegate finishes, and it returns the final answer. It does not cover failure/timeout behavior, cost, or isolation of the delegate, which leaves some gaps for an unattended blocking call.

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?

Three short sentences, zero waste, and the blocking constraint plus the routing guidance are front-loaded. Every sentence conveys a decision-relevant fact.

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 7-parameter delegation tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return semantics ('final answer') and the blocking contract, which the schema cannot express. Minor gap: no mention of what happens on delegate failure or timeout.

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 seven parameters (including id, tools allowlist, extensions, model) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Delegate a task to a pi agent') and clarifies the interaction model ('wait for the final answer'), then explicitly differentiates itself from the `spawn` sibling. An agent can distinguish this from spawn, spawn_batch, and follow_up without opening any 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?

Names the alternative (`spawn`) and the exact condition that selects it ('long work') versus the condition for this tool ('quick questions'). This is an explicit when/when-not/alternative statement, which is the top of the scale.

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