Delegate Implementation To Claude Code

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

Annotations already mark the tool as non-read-only and non-idempotent. The description adds value by disclosing that this executes an external CLI, mutates the workspace ('Claude implements changes'), and returns a bundle of review signals. It does not cover failure modes or side effects such as a dirty working tree, but the allowDirty parameter in the schema covers that boundary.

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 that packs the core behavior and output artifacts with no filler. The enumeration of returned items is long but each item is informative and earns its place.

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?

With an output schema present, the description need not detail return types, and it already lists the key delivered artifacts. It omits explicit sibling routing and some edge-case behavior, but annotations and a fully covered schema fill most gaps, making the description adequate for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already documented in the input schema. The description reinforces workspacePath ('explicit workspacePath') and the task concept, but does not add new meaning about parameters beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a specific action — run Claude Code CLI in an explicit workspacePath — and names the resource (the target Git repository). It also explains the result: Claude implements changes while Codex receives output, git status, diff stat, changed files, stderr, and raw output tail for review, which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling status tool.

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 establishes the intended context: delegate implementation work to Claude Code and get review artifacts back to Codex. It does not explicitly name get_claude_subagent_status or state when not to use this tool, but the context is clear enough for an agent to route appropriately.

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