spawn_and_continue

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries full burden. It explains automatic DAG rewiring and that downstream dependents wait for the continuation. Also notes the tool is hidden at max depth. These are important behavioral traits beyond the schema.

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 moderately lengthy but well-structured with Args, Returns, and a Note. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and each sentence contributes useful information.

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 tool's complexity and lack of annotations, the description covers purpose, usage, behavior, parameters, and return values. It also mentions the hidden constraint. An output schema exists, so return explanation is sufficient.

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%, but the description adds clear meanings for each parameter: step_id, partial_output, subtasks (structuring as dicts), and continuation. This adds significant value over the bare 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 'Split your work: spawn subtasks and a continuation' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes from siblings like `complete_step` or `fail_step` by focusing on task decomposition.

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 says 'Use when you discover you need additional work done before you can finish' which is explicit usage guidance. It does not mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context with siblings implies differentiation.

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