deepseek_task

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

Beyond the raw annotations (readOnly:false, destructive:false), the description adds valuable behavioral context: the isolation guarantee ('main workspace is never modified automatically') and the mandatory review gate ('Codex must review the report and patch before applying anything'). This paints a coherent safety model — the operation produces work but is gated — that the annotations alone don't fully convey. It stops short of addressing failure paths, but for this complexity level it's strong.

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 sentences, each earning its place: (1) what and where, (2) safety/review gate, (3) return format. Front-loaded with the purpose statement, zero fluff, and optimally scannable for an agent parsing the definition.

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?

For a 3-param tool with no output schema, the description covers the key facets: delegation target, isolation model, safety gate, and return contract (status, task_id, retry info, usage, artifact paths). Remaining minor gaps: no guidance on error/failure behavior or how task_id might chain with sibling tools, but neither is critical given the explicit safety workflow.

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% — cwd, task, and timeout_minutes already have meaningful descriptions with defaults, constraints, and types. The description adds no additional parameter semantics on top of the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. The 'Returns compact structured JSON...' sentence describes the output, not the 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 pairs a specific verb ('Delegate') with a resource ('DeepSeek Harness in an isolated Git worktree') and a clear scope ('normal implementation/refactor/debug task'). The word 'normal' implicitly contrasts with the specialized sibling tools (fix/explore/review/stats), though it stops short of explicitly naming them as alternatives.

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?

Usage is implied rather than stated: 'normal implementation/refactor/debug task' signals this is the general-purpose sibling, while deepseek_explore/review/fix/stats handle specialization. However, there are no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named-alternative statements, and the safety workflow note ('Codex must review the report and patch before applying anything') is about execution behavior rather than selection criteria.

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