worker_delegate

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It discloses background execution, independent verification, and optionally blocking. However, it lacks details on failure modes or timeouts, but is sufficient for a delegation tool.

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?

Well-structured with a clear first sentence, usage guidelines, and parameter list. Every sentence serves a purpose. No fluff.

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 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, parameter details, and background behavior. It feels complete for the tool's complexity.

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 0%, but the Args section explains all 7 parameters (objective, repository, worker, permission, verify, base_ref, wait) with clear descriptions, adding substantial value beyond the schema.

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 action: 'Delegate a scoped coding task to an external AI coding worker in an isolated git worktree, then independently verify the result.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_workers, worker_cancel, worker_logs, and worker_status, which are for management/status.

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?

Explicitly when to use: 'USE for: implementing a feature, fixing a bug across files, a refactor or migration.' And when not: 'DO NOT USE for a trivial one-line edit, or non-coding work.' Also mentions polling with worker_status for background tasks.

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