让协作 AI 执行一轮工作

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: the current AI becomes the coordinator, delegates to a partner, then reads results and may loop with follow-ups. It still omits blocking vs async behavior, timeout/failure handling, and any auth requirements.

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?

A single dense sentence that front-loads the coordination model and the delegation step. Nothing is wasted, though it is arguably too terse for a 10-parameter tool.

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?

For a tool with 10 parameters, 4 enums, near-zero schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is not complete enough. It explains the orchestration loop but leaves parameter intent, return behavior, and failure modes entirely to inference.

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?

With 10 parameters and only 10% schema description coverage, the description carries the burden and largely fails. It alludes to 'task' being handed to the partner AI, but says nothing about mode, approved_decision, partner_model, partner_effort, partner_selection, primary_agent, or context — nine parameters whose meaning and enum values remain unexplained.

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 conveys an orchestration action — the current chat AI acts as coordinator and dispatches this round's task to a partner AI — but it never names the tool's actual verb/resource clearly, and it does not distinguish start_workflow from near-identical siblings such as start_consultation, start_model_debate, and start_codex_implementation. An agent can guess it starts a delegation round, but cannot tell which of several similar 'start_*' tools to pick.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this tool versus the alternatives, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. The description describes the internal flow after the call (read result, follow up, summarize) but gives the agent no selection criteria.

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