delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'clean Codex exec' and 'own persona/profile', which hint at isolation and customization, but it does not disclose any side effects, return behavior, or whether the operation modifies the workspace. Given the presence of sandbox_mode and approval_policy parameters, the absence of safety/permission context is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no filler words. It gets to the point immediately. However, it may be overly concise given the tool's complexity, but for what it covers, it is well-structured and easy to parse.

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?

For a tool with 8 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is incomplete. It does not explain how results are returned, whether the operation is synchronous, or what the sandbox_mode and approval_policy values imply. The description only covers the basic idea of delegation, leaving the agent to guess about critical aspects of invocation.

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 schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. However, it only hints at 'persona/profile' and implies a 'task', but provides no meaning for cwd, mirror_repo, sandbox_mode, approval_policy, or how these interact. The description fails to explain the key configuration parameters that an AI agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('a named sub-agent'), and adds meaningful context about executing as a clean Codex exec with its own persona/profile. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delegate_batch (which implies batch processing) and list_agents/validate_agents (which are management operations).

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that delegate_batch should be used for batch operations, nor does it state any prerequisites or exclusions. The only implied usage is from the tool name and sibling names, which is not explicit.

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