delegate_task

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: non-blocking, sandboxed to cwd, ability to add directories via include_dirs, shell access outside workspace, startup delay, and recommended timeout values. Lacks details on error handling or rate limits but covers major aspects.

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: first sentence states purpose, followed by sandbox constraints, use cases, async behavior, and important notes. It is relatively concise given the complexity, though some details could be more streamlined. No wasted sentences.

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 (23 parameters, no output schema), the description provides a good overview of the workflow, including async polling via get_task_result. It covers startup delay, workspace scope, and timeout advice. Could be more explicit about error scenarios but is generally 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter-specific explanations beyond what the schema already provides. It mentions workspace and timeout in a general sense but does not elaborate on individual parameters.

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: delegating a coding task to a CLI agent in headless mode. It specifies the verb 'delegate', the resource 'coding task', and the asynchronous nature (non-blocking, returns task_id). It distinguishes itself from siblings like delegate_task_readonly and get_task_result.

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 provides explicit use cases: 'Use this for parallel work: code review, testing, refactoring, analysis, or any dev task.' It also advises on timeout settings and warns about startup delay. However, it does not explicitly contrast with delegate_task_readonly or other alternatives, leaving some ambiguity.

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