subtask

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

While no annotations are present, the description discloses behavioral traits: each agent type has its own tools, iteration budget, and behavioral constraints, plus the spin-up cost. It doesn't detail return values or side effects, but the transparency is adequate for delegation context.

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: a concise opening sentence, a bullet-like list of agent types, and a clear usage guideline. Each sentence serves a purpose without redundancy.

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 purpose, agent types, and usage guidelines. It lacks explicit mention of return values or detailed constraints (iteration budget), but given the complexity and absence of output schema, it provides sufficient context for correct tool invocation.

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%, but the description adds value beyond the schema by explaining each agent type's purpose (create, audit, token) and implying the prompt should be specific about what to create/modify/audit. This adds meaningful context for parameter usage.

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 the tool delegates a focused sub-task to a typed child agent, lists three agent types with specific purposes (create, audit, token), and explicitly differentiates from inline calls for 1-2 operations. This provides clear verb+resource and distinguishes it from siblings.

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 explicitly states when to use (3+ distinct regions or specialized behavior) and when not (1-2 tool-call operations finish faster). It provides clear context and exclusions, guiding the agent to choose appropriately.

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