workflow_dispatch

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'completion ticket' and 'original Codex reviewer' and a prerequisite, but does not disclose side effects, whether work is synchronous or asynchronous, what happens to the DSH session, or what the return value/outcome looks like.

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 concise, consisting of two short sentences with no redundant filler. The main action is front-loaded, and the prerequisite is stated separately. Slight jargon ('bounded work', 'completion ticket') reduces clarity but not structural efficiency.

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?

This is a complex tool with 7 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry a heavy load. It provides only a high-level purpose and prerequisites, leaving parameter semantics, invocation outcomes, and behavioral consequences undocumented. Not adequate for safe and correct invocation.

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 0%, and the description does not explain any of the seven parameters. Terms like 'bounded work' and 'completion ticket' are not explicitly mapped to maxRounds, acceptance, taskId, or any other property, so an agent has no meaningful semantic guidance for invoking the tool correctly.

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 states a specific action: 'Bind and dispatch bounded work to an existing DSH session,' which clearly identifies the resource (DSH session) and the operation (dispatch work with completion ticket and Codex reviewer). It partially distinguishes itself from sibling status and review tools by focusing on dispatching work, though it does not explicitly contrast with similar tools like dsh_prompt.

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 gives a prerequisite ('Requires configured project allowlist and Codex connection') but no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools, when not to use it, or conditions that would make another tool more appropriate.

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