escalate_task

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

The description adds behavioral details beyond the annotations: the retry is read-only, budgeted, and the original task remains unchanged. This provides valuable context about side effects and scope, going beyond the readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false annotations without contradicting them.

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?

Two concise sentences, front-loaded with the action, no unnecessary words. Every word earns its place, and the key details (budgeted, read-only, deeper profile, original unchanged) are efficiently packed.

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?

For a simple tool with 2 parameters and annotations present, the description covers the core behavior: it creates a retry, uses a deeper profile, is budgeted, read-only, and leaves the original task untouched. It lacks details on return values or explicit usage guidance, but the tool's simplicity and schema annotations make it reasonably complete.

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 explains that 'profile' refers to a 'deeper worker profile', giving it some meaning. 'task_id' is self-explanatory. However, with 0% schema coverage, the description only partially compensates; it does not elaborate on allowed profile values or what 'budgeted' means.

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 action ('Create') and resource ('one budgeted read-only retry'), with a distinguishing feature ('deeper worker profile'). It differentiates from siblings like retry_fallback and delegate_task by emphasizing the read-only, budgeted nature and that the original task remains unchanged.

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 the use case: when you need a retry with a deeper worker profile. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like retry_fallback or delegate_task, nor does it mention exclusions or prerequisites. Context is clear but not fully explicit.

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