cos_dispatch_formula

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states a crucial trait: 'returns prompt text only' and explicitly denies spawning. This reveals the non-side-effect nature of the tool, though it omits preconditions or error behavior. Given no annotations, this is a solid disclosure.

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 short, focused sentences with no fluff. It front-loads the main action and uses the final sentence to clarify a critical behavioral caveat. Every sentence adds value.

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?

Although an output schema exists and the description covers the core purpose and non-spawning behavior, the complete absence of parameter semantics and minimal usage guidance leaves significant gaps. With 5 parameters and 4 required, the agent needs more context to call this tool correctly.

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 0% and the description contains no parameter explanations. Required parameters like `formula_id`, `session_id`, `task_marker`, and `persona_id` are not defined in either the schema or the description, leaving the agent without any semantic grounding for correct invocation.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and precise resource ('rendered agent prompt and input slice for a formula-agent'). It also distinguishes itself from the likely sibling `cos_dispatch_formula_run` by explicitly stating 'Does NOT spawn the subagent'.

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?

It provides clear usage context: 'The main agent uses this to construct the subagent dispatch.' It also gives a clear exclusion with 'Does NOT spawn the subagent.' However, it does not explicitly name an alternative tool for when spawning is desired, so it's not fully explicit.

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