dispatch_to_llm

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It states that the tool dispatches a task but does not disclose whether the dispatch is synchronous or asynchronous, whether it modifies state, has side effects, or requires special permissions. This leaves the agent without critical behavioral context.

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 sentence of 9 words, extremely concise and to the point. However, it could be slightly more informative without losing conciseness. No wasted words, but the brevity leaves gaps in completeness.

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 2 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It lacks details about return value, potential errors, execution behavior (e.g., waiting vs fire-and-forget), and whether the task is cancellable. This is insufficient for an agent to use it confidently.

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 100% with descriptions for both parameters ('task' and 'max_turns'). The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, which is adequate. Baseline score of 3 applies since the schema already documents parameter semantics.

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 'Dispatch a task to a background Claude Code agent' uses a specific verb ('dispatch'), a clear resource ('task'), and a well-defined target ('background Claude Code agent'). It effectively distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'audit_mcp_config' or 'emergency_kill_switch', which involve different 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, nor does it mention prerequisites, error conditions, or when not to use it. Sibling tools are listed but not compared, leaving the agent without context for selection.

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