review_task

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does add useful behavioral insight: the tool runs a two-phase worker-then-reviewer flow and returns worker_task and reviewer_task objects. However, it omits auth requirements, behavior on worker/reviewer failure, timeout semantics, and whether delegation is recursive (depth hints at this but is unexplained).

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 purpose sentence is front-loaded and the Args/Returns structure is easy to scan. It is appropriately sized with no obvious padding, though the Args listing partially duplicates the structured schema.

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 purpose, all parameters, and a return shape; the output schema existing means return values need not be detailed further. For a 6-param delegation tool with no annotations, the main residual gap is the missing when-to-use guidance rather than missing mechanics.

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, and it does so by explaining all six parameters (worker_id, reviewer_id, task, context, timeout, depth). Minor gap: context is described as a 'JSON object' while the schema types it as a string with default "{}", a slight mismatch.

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 two-phase verb+resource: delegate a task to a worker, then have a reviewer critique the work. This is clear and actionable. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like delegate_task, debate_task, or pipeline_task, leaving the agent to infer the difference.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as delegate_task, debate_task, or pipeline_task, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only says what it does, not when it is the right choice.

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