claude_code

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It honestly describes the agent's autonomous capabilities (read/write files, run shell commands), implying potential side effects. However, it does not disclose safety constraints, permission requirements, or destructive potential beyond what is implied.

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: the first states purpose and capabilities, the second explains return value and follow-up mechanism. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy, and key information is front-loaded.

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 tool has many parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential outcome (result text + session_id) and follow-up usage. For a complex tool, it provides sufficient context, though more detail on return format or behavior with various parameters could improve completeness.

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 100%, meaning all 13 parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description clearly states the tool sends tasks to an autonomous Claude Code agent and lists specific capabilities (reads/writes files, runs shell commands, searches codebases). It distinguishes from sibling tools by noting it returns a session_id for follow-ups via claude_code_reply.

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 implicitly provides usage guidelines by stating return of session_id for follow-ups, indicating when to use this tool (initial task) vs claude_code_reply (follow-up). No explicit when-not or alternatives, but context is clear.

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