recommend_agent_for_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It qualifies the tool as 'bounded read-only' and lists exclusions, but does not detail authentication needs, error behaviors, or the format of the recommendation. While adequate, it lacks depth on potential side effects or limitations.

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 two sentences: one for the primary purpose and one clarifying what it does not do. It is front-loaded with the key action, contains no redundant information, and efficiently conveys the tool's scope.

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?

With five parameters (two required) and full schema coverage, the description sufficiently outlines the tool's purpose and boundaries. However, the return value ('recommendation') is unspecified, and without an output schema, the agent might need more detail on what the recommendation contains. Still, the description is mostly complete for a read-only routing tool.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional meaning to the parameters; it does not explain how they influence the recommendation. Given full schema coverage, the description does not need to elaborate, but it also provides no extra value.

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 returns a 'bounded read-only agent routing recommendation for a repo-scoped task', specifying a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly listing what it does not do: 'Does not start an agent, create a task, or read logs.' This differentiation is clear and direct.

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 provides usage guidance by stating what the tool does not do ('Does not start an agent, create a task, or read logs'), implicitly telling the agent when to avoid it. However, it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like create_task or invoke_discovered_tool, and could offer more direct context.

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