Delegate test writing/running to a cheaper model

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false. The description adds context that changes to production code are avoided unless strictly required, which is more nuanced than the annotation alone. It also mentions optional run_tests behavior. No contradictions.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Args, See also, Returns) and front-loaded purpose. While somewhat verbose, every sentence adds value. Could be slightly tighter but remains effective.

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 14 parameters, no output schema, and adequate annotations, the description covers core behavior, parameter semantics, and cross-references delegate_task for completeness. The return value is not detailed but correctly noted as same shape as delegate_task. Minor gap: no explicit mention of error handling or side effects beyond 'avoids production code changes'.

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?

With 36% schema coverage, the description compensates by listing and explaining many parameters (scope, directory, framework, run_tests, response_format, and the alias task). However, several parameters are only referenced as 'same as delegate_task' without full detail, relying on the agent's knowledge of that sibling. Some meaning is added, but not complete.

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 explicitly states it is a test-focused wrapper around delegate_task, with the subagent writing and optionally running tests while avoiding production code changes. This specific verb+resource combination clearly distinguishes it from the general-purpose delegate_task sibling.

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 clear guidance: it is for test writing/running, avoids production code changes unless necessary, and explicitly references delegate_task as an alternative with a different parameter name (task vs scope). This helps the agent decide when to use this tool.

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