wave_delegate_subagent

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

No annotations exist, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It only mentions background execution, omitting critical details like async behavior, return value, error handling, or required permissions. The agent cannot infer the post-invocation experience.

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 a single short sentence (12 words), but it sacrifices essential details for brevity. While front-loaded, it fails to earn its place by adding value beyond the tool name.

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 3 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is grossly incomplete. It omits parameter guidance, usage context, and behavioral outcomes, making it unfit for reliable agent use.

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 input schema has 3 parameters with 0% description coverage, but the tool description adds no meaning to 'task', 'context', or 'workspace_id'. The agent has no clue what values to provide, severely limiting correct invocation.

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 task to a Wave OS sub-agent for background execution, using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'wave' (synchronous) and other wave tools by emphasizing background execution and sub-agent delegation.

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 provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'wave' or 'wave_triage'. The description lacks context for choosing this tool over siblings, failing to indicate prerequisites or exclusions.

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