Decide how to handle a task, and brief whoever handles it

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

The description reveals meaningful behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it performs a complexity assessment, returns one of three artifact types, and may include intake questions to ask first. It also warns about cost of unnecessary delegation. It does not disclose whether the tool has side effects or executes the plan itself, but the annotations offer no contradiction.

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?

Three dense sentences deliver the core workflow, when to invoke, and a cost-awareness guardrail. Every sentence earns its place, and the most important behavioral signal (what the tool returns) is front-loaded.

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 lack of an output schema and sparse annotations, the description does a good job explaining the three possible return shapes and the 'ask intake questions first' behavior. It is less complete on how to interpret or execute the returned plan, and it leaves the numeric limit parameters unexplained, but the core calling workflow is clear.

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 adds no parameter-specific meaning; all parameter semantics must come from the schema, which covers only 57% of parameters. Notably, memory_limit, knowledge_limit, and scope have little or no explanation in the schema, and the description does not compensate by explaining how limits or scope affect the delegation assessment.

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 identifies the tool's purpose with specific verbs: assess a task's complexity, then return a delegation shape (handle directly, single specialist, or multi-stage pipeline). It clearly distinguishes this from the sibling tools by framing it as the pre-task router/briefer, though it never names a sibling explicitly.

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 says when to call the tool ('before starting any non-trivial task') and when not to delegate ('Respect a handle_directly verdict — spawning a subagent for small work wastes tokens and time'). This gives the agent both an inclusion and an exclusion criterion in one short passage.

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