spawn

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does usefully disclose asynchronous execution and the managed-caller child-team behavior, but it omits other important behavior such as side effects, resource implications, failure modes, or how to retrieve the spawned session's output.

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 two tight sentences with no filler, front-loading the core action and the key asynchronous trait. Every clause adds some signal, making it efficient and scannable.

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—11 parameters, no output schema, no annotations—the description leaves too much undefined for reliable invocation. The managed-caller behavior is a useful detail, but the overall definition is incomplete for an operation that creates a coding-agent session.

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%, and the description adds no meaning to any of the 11 parameters. 'First job' loosely hints at prompt, but provider, access, workspace, team_id, parent_agent_id, effort, role, and model are entirely unexplained, so the agent gets no parameter-level help.

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 states a specific verb ('spawn'), resource ('coding-agent session'), and the asynchronous start behavior, so an agent can grasp the main action. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling spawn_many, but the singular 'a coding-agent session' makes the single-session scope clear enough.

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?

No guidance is given on when to choose spawn over spawn_many, send, or wait, nor when not to use it. The managed-callers note offers a small usage hint, but there is no explicit routing or alternative-selection guidance.

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