delegate_to_local_coder

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the worker can inspect files, patch code, create files, run tests, and inspect git diff, which clearly indicates a mutation of the workspace. It also suggests a follow-up review by Codex. This covers primary side effects but omits details like async behavior, failure modes, or timeouts, which are not disclosed.

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 sentences, front-loading the purpose and then listing capabilities and a workflow note. There is zero fluff, and every sentence contributes meaning. It is appropriately sized for a tool of moderate complexity.

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?

While the output schema exists and could describe return values, the description omits essential parameter semantics, making it incomplete for correct invocation. It also lacks preconditions (e.g., workspace must be a local path) and any error/edge-case context. For a delegation tool, the agent needs to know how to construct the task and workspace.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must explain parameter meanings. It does not mention 'task', 'workspace', or 'max_steps' at all. An agent cannot infer what constitutes a valid 'workspace' (e.g., path, repo URL) or what 'max_steps' controls. This is a critical omission.

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 delegates a coding implementation task to a local Qwen worker, using the verb 'delegate' with a specific resource. It also lists the worker's capabilities, which distinguishes what the tool can do. However, it could be more explicit about the scope of 'implementation' (e.g., only code changes vs. tests), though it is not misleading.

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 implies when to use it (for coding implementation tasks) but does not provide explicit guidance on when not to use it or alternatives. There are no sibling tools, so differentiation is not needed, but the description lacks conditions or prerequisites such as workspace requirements. The note to 'review the result afterwards' gives a follow-up action but not selection criteria.

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