list_delegations

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

The annotation readOnlyHint=true already establishes the safe read-only nature. The description adds context about the output contents ('who has operator access to what, and its status'), but does not disclose additional behavioral traits such as ordering, pagination, or default filters. It meets the minimum bar with the annotation supported.

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, well-structured sentence that leads with the action verb. It contains no filler words and precisely conveys the scope and content, earning the maximum score.

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 simple, zero-parameter read-only list tool with no output schema. The description fully covers what the tool lists and the key information returned (operator access and status), making it sufficiently complete for an agent to understand and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description needs no parameter explanation, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% with an empty properties object. No further parameter semantics are required.

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 uses a specific verb ('List') and resource ('outgoing delegations you granted'), clearly distinguishing it from incoming delegations. It further specifies the informational content ('who has operator access to what, and its status'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 phrasing 'outgoing delegations you granted' clearly indicates when to use this tool—for viewing delegations you initiated—and implicitly differentiates it from the sibling tool 'list_delegated_to_me'. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, stopping short of a 5.

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