delegate_to_agent

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose a key side effect—creating a new Git worktree—but it omits other important details such as whether the execution is asynchronous, how results are returned, or how the worktree is cleaned up. This leaves security and lifecycle concerns unaddressed.

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 consists of exactly two sentences: the first front-loads the primary action and target, and the second adds a critical side-effect detail. There is no redundant or irrelevant wording, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

This tool has 7 parameters and clearly initiates a multi-step workflow (creating a worktree and delegating a task), yet the description omits lifecycle context—such as that this produces a run that may later be continued, applied, or cleaned up via sibling tools. With no annotations, important safety and behavioral details are missing, leaving the description incomplete for such a complex 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, yet the description provides no explanation of parameter roles, such as the difference between 'context' and 'objective' or the meaning of 'worker_id'. The only meaning comes from parameter names and titles in the schema, so the description fails to compensate for the absence of schema-level descriptions.

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 verb 'delegate' and the resource 'a new task to a Gemini worker', and it differentiates from sibling tools by highlighting 'new task' and 'isolated execution' via a Git worktree. This contrasts with the list/continue/apply/cleanup siblings, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 initiating a new task, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over the sibling tools, nor does it mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is inferable but not directly guided.

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