run_agent

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

Annotations are all false and convey no behavioral safety profile, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: the sub-agent runs in an isolated context with restricted tools, completes the task independently, returns only the final answer, and requires the allow_agents config setting. This is significant context beyond the schema and annotations.

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 sentences, each adding value: purpose, usage guidance/alternatives, and a configuration prerequisite. It is front-loaded and contains no filler or redundant phrasing.

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 the tool's moderate complexity and lack of output schema, the description sufficiently covers the return behavior (only final answer), execution context (isolated, restricted tools), prerequisites (allow_agents config), and boundary against direct delegation. This is complete enough for an agent to use 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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100% and both parameters (agent_name and task) have detailed descriptions in the schema itself (e.g., task must be self-contained, no conversation history access). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Delegate') and identifies the resource ('a named sub-agent') with clear scope ('focused task', 'isolated context', 'restricted tool set'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by positioning delegation as a separate pathway from direct tool use and referencing list_agents for discovery.

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 gives explicit usage guidance: 'Use list_agents to discover available agents' and 'Do not delegate tasks you can complete directly with other tools.' This clearly states when to use the tool versus alternatives and provides an exclusion criterion.

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