decompose_task

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

With no annotations, the description fully covers behavioral traits: it describes calling a planner, decomposing into subtasks, returning analysis, subtasks with specific fields, waves, and strategy. Additionally, it advises to 'Spawn one agent per subtask; run waves in order,' which clarifies execution model.

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?

Concise and well-structured: opens with alias and preferred usage, explains what it does, lists return fields, and gives a usage instruction. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully details the return structure (analysis, subtasks, waves, strategy). It addresses complexity of multi-file tasks and provides sufficient context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with both parameters defined in the schema. The description does not add extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states it is an alias for plan_task and is the preferred entry point for multi-file or multi-concern tasks. Explicitly describes that it decomposes a task into independent subtasks with model tier assignments and dependency waves, distinguishing it from siblings like route_task.

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?

Provides explicit guidance on when to use this tool ('Use this instead of route_task whenever the task spans more than one file, module, or concern'), which clearly differentiates it from an alternative and gives a concrete condition.

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