delegate_task

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

The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond the annotations: it reveals that explore/review are read-only while execute uses an isolated git worktree and may require approval. This goes beyond the annotation flags (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) by explaining the mode-dependent safety profile. However, it does not disclose other behaviors like queueing semantics or what 'bounded' entails.

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 a single sentence, highly concise and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every clause adds value: it defines the tool (queue bounded task), clarifies the read-only modes, and flags the approval requirement for execute. No filler or 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?

Given the tool's complexity (18 parameters, no output schema), the description is significantly incomplete. It offers no explanation of return values, queue behavior, what 'bounded' means, how approval works, or how the many parameters interact. The description captures the essential distinction between modes but leaves substantial gaps for an agent to safely invoke the tool.

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?

The description provides no information about any of the 18 parameters. Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not even mention the required parameters (objective, workspace) or the enums (kind, mode, reasoning_effort). With a complex parameter set and no guidance, the description fails to aid in parameter selection or construction.

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's purpose: 'Queue one bounded worker task.' It specifies the action (queue), the object (worker task), and the scope (one, bounded). It also distinguishes between the read-only modes (explore/review) and execute, which helps differentiate it from sibling tools like delegate_batch (batch) and get_task (retrieval).

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 usage for a single bounded worker task and notes that execute may require approval, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like delegate_batch or orchestrate. There are no exclusions or explicit 'when not to use' instructions, leaving the guideline somewhat implied rather than clearly articulated.

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