cos_dispatch_formula_run

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

The description discloses that the tool costs ~5k tokens, rebuilds context, is opt-in, and returns status='skipped' without an SDK. These behavioral details go beyond what annotations typically provide, and since no annotations are present, the description carries the full burden effectively. The context rebuild penalty and opt-in nature are valuable transparency.

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 structured with a clear hierarchy: purpose, cost/behavior, alternative, use conditions, and fallback. Each sentence adds value, and the length is justified by the amount of guidance. It's front-loaded with the core action, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the 10-parameter input with zero schema documentation leaves the agent guessing about required arguments. The description covers when to use the tool but not how to properly invoke it, making it incomplete for a complex tool with this many parameters. The guidance focuses on decision-making rather than invocation details.

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 10 parameters with 0% description coverage, and the description provides no details on the meaning of formula_id, session_id, task_marker, persona_id, or optional fields like model/effort. The only allusion is 'role' which loosely maps to persona_id but is never explicitly connected. This is a critical gap for a tool with four required parameters.

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 'EXPLICIT, OPT-IN sub-agent spawn for one role' which identifies the action (spawn) and resource (sub-agent for one role). It distinguishes from siblings like cos_dispatch_parallel_run by specifying 'for one role' and from cos_dispatch_formula by noting this is the explicit/opt-in variant. The fallback behavior further clarifies the tool's purpose.

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 explicitly says 'PREFER lazy-loading' and gives an alternative approach with reasoning ('same accuracy, far fewer tokens'). It provides two concrete conditions for using this tool: '(a) the role's work is long-running' or '(b) you explicitly want a separate session for parallelism.' It also explains when to skip if no SDK is available. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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