create_agent

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the disclosure burden. It discloses the side effect ('writes the in-memory process table'), notes that it does not execute a goal, and mentions the default model. It could add more about process-table volatility or idempotency, but the key behavioral traits are covered.

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?

Three concise sentences front-load the purpose, then cover return value, side effect, and default model. There is no filler, and the most decision-relevant information appears early.

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?

The description covers what the tool returns, what it does not do, and its side effect, while the output schema and fully documented parameters fill remaining details. It is sufficient for an agent to invoke the tool correctly, though it does not explicitly route to create_workflow.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description echoes intent, USD budget, capabilities, and default model but adds no meaning beyond what the input schema already provides.

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?

States a specific operation: 'Create an agent process with intent, USD budget, and capabilities.' It also clarifies that the tool returns an agent_id for later run_task/list_agents and does not execute a goal, which distinguishes it from sibling execution tools.

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?

Clearly implies the correct workflow: create the agent first, then use the returned agent_id with run_task or list_agents. It also gives an explicit exclusion ('Does not execute a goal'), though it does not directly mention when to use create_workflow instead.

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