desktop_ask_cc_project

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

No annotations exist, so the description bears the full burden. It only states 'assign tasks' without explaining side effects, such as whether a new session is created, whether it blocks, or how parameters like session_id or open_if_needed affect behavior. The description is almost entirely opaque.

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 a single short sentence, which is concise but severely underspecified for a tool with 7 parameters. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity, making it inadequate for proper usage.

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 no output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation, the description is far from complete. It fails to explain input semantics, expected output, or side effects, leaving a major knowledge gap for an AI agent.

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 0% parameter description coverage, and the description adds meaning only for the 'project' parameter (via 'by project name/alias'). The critical parameters 'text', 'cli', 'terminal', 'session_id', 'open_if_needed', and 'allow_frontmost' are entirely unexplained, leaving the agent unable to use the tool effectively.

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 assigns tasks to Claude Code/Codex by project name or alias. This distinguishes it from similar tools like desktop_ask_cc (without project scope) and desktop_open_cc_project (only opens, doesn't assign).

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, contexts, or situations where another tool would be more appropriate, which is a significant gap given the many sibling tools.

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