delegate_task

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) and the description adds useful behavioral details: auto-delegation to workers for large files, fallback behavior, and the distinction between small and large files. No contradictions with 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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, every sentence adds value. No unnecessary words. Perfectly concise.

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?

The description covers the two modes and critical behavior (delegation, fallback). Output schema exists to document return values. Missing details on error scenarios (e.g., invalid project) but overall sufficient given schema and annotations.

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 good parameter descriptions. The description adds context on how 'project', 'path', and 'section' interact, which is helpful but not essential beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 two distinct purposes: offloading work to a cheaper model and summarizing vault files, with a conditional trigger (project parameter). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like vault_query or vault_search, which may also involve reading vault files.

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 implies when to use each mode (project triggers summarization, otherwise offload) and explains behavioral differences for small vs large files. But it lacks explicit guidance on when not to use this tool or alternatives, e.g., for simple vault queries.

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