delegate_task

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint, idempotentHint=false), so the bar is lower. The description adds genuinely important context beyond that: returned content is untrusted model output that must be verified before being applied or presented as fact, and file paths must be relative to workspace_root.

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?

Four short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, path constraint, model choice, and verification warning. Front-loaded with the core action and free of filler.

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?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation, and the untrusted-output warning is valuable. However, for a 9-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, six parameters receive no semantic explanation anywhere, leaving meaningful gaps an agent must guess at.

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% across 9 parameters, so the description carries the full burden and only partially delivers. It clarifies files (read-only workspace files), model (flash vs pro), and workspace_root (relative path base), but leaves context, provider, output_format, reasoning_effort, max_output_tokens, and task undefined.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('delegate a bounded task') and scopes it with 'using optional read-only workspace files'. The annotation title confirms it as delegation to an auxiliary LLM. No siblings exist to differentiate from, so it lands at 4 rather than 5.

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 offers model-selection guidance ('Use flash for routine work and pro for difficult analysis'), which is really parameter advice rather than when-to-use guidance. It never states when delegation is appropriate versus doing the work inline, nor any exclusions or prerequisites.

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