dispatch

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains that transport overrides default and escalate_to_pro switches to stronger tier. It does not mention side effects or destruction, but the behavior of dispatching is well-covered.

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 front-loaded with the core action and then adds a valuable routing note. It is somewhat lengthy but every sentence adds information. The mismatch in transport enum values is a minor structural flaw.

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 lack of output schema and 4 parameters, the description provides complete context: what the tool does, how parameters work, and when to use it. The routing note answers likely follow-up questions, making it fully actionable.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains transport and escalate_to_pro, but a mismatch exists: description says 'generate'|'cli' while schema enum is ['generate_new','edit_exists']. Prompt and agent_id are left to inference. Partial but flawed.

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 begins with 'Run a specific agent by id with a prompt', clearly stating the verb (run) and resource (agent). It distinguishes from sibling tools like list_agents or get_stats, though it does not explicitly contrast. The purpose is immediately clear.

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 explicit guidance on when to use strong-tier models vs weak-tier, and treats escalate_to_pro as a retry lever. The ROUTING NOTE gives clear when-not and alternatives (fix spec before escalating). This is exemplary usage advice.

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