delegate_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool 'returns ONLY the generated artifact' and that the planner must 'verify and integrate it,' which are key behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose potential failure modes, error handling, or any side effects, leaving some gaps.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose statement, a 'GOOD for' list, a 'NOT for' list, and an instruction. It is somewhat longer than the ideal two-sentence example, but every section earns its place by adding practical guidance on usage. It is not verbose or redundant.

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?

The tool has four parameters, no output schema, and no annotations. The description covers the essential context: what it does, when to use it, what inputs to provide, and what output to expect (only the artifact). Minor gaps like error handling are not critical for a delegation tool, making this fairly 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 input schema already provides descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds general guidance ('Provide a precise spec plus any context the worker needs'), but this is only a slight reinforcement of the task and context parameters without introducing new semantics beyond the schema.

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: 'Delegate a self-contained, mechanical code-generation subtask to a local LLM.' It also provides specific examples of good use cases (boilerplate, scaffolding, CRUD) and exclusions, distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'list_local_models' which is about listing models, not delegating code generation.

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 lists 'GOOD for' and 'NOT for' scenarios, giving clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance. It even instructs the agent to 'do those yourself' for unsuited tasks, which is a direct exclusion. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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