delegate_implementation

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

Disclosures include all possible return statuses with structured fields, that it never raises, the auto-selection of review based on output, and mutation flags for implement. No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Lacks explicit mention of authorization or side effects beyond mutation.

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?

Well-structured with bullet points and code blocks for return types. Efficiently conveys complex workflow without redundancy. Slightly lengthy but justified by complexity.

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 10 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers workflow and error handling well but lacks parameter guidance. Incomplete for full parameter understanding.

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 description must compensate. Only base_path's allow-listing is mentioned; task, agent selections, timeouts, plan_depth, constraints are not explained. Users must infer most parameter meanings from context or external knowledge.

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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose as a three-stage pipeline (plan → implement → review) in one MCP call. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like planner, implement, diff_review, and codereview that handle individual stages.

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?

Provides explicit context: when you want a complete pipeline, notes that base_path must be allow-listed, explains automatic routing between diff_review and codereview, and states that it never raises errors. Could be more explicit about when to use composite vs individual tools.

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