get_delegation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool returns the stored publishable token plus a derived effective_status/is_valid, and explains the invalidation logic involving control proof status and expires_at. This is substantive context beyond a simple 'get'. It doesn't explicitly assert read-only behavior, but 'Get' reasonably implies no mutation.

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 purpose is front-loaded in a clear opening sentence. The following sentences about derived status and access requirements are valuable and not redundant. The ACCESS note is actionable and compact. It is slightly verbose in the derivation explanation, but every sentence earns its place.

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 simple single-parameter get tool with no output schema, the description explains what is returned, the semantics of the derived fields, and the auth prerequisite. It doesn't detail error cases or exact response formatting, but it conveys the essential information an agent needs to use 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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage for the single id parameter, including the pattern and a description. The description mostly restates the two allowed id forms, adding only the ownership nuance ('one of your delegations'). This is a baseline 3 because the schema does the heavy lifting and the description adds minimal extra meaning.

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 the exact action: 'Get one of your delegations by Mongo id or ph_dlg_* handle.' This names the verb, the resource, and the retrieval mechanism. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_delegations by targeting a single delegation and from revoke_delegation/verify_delegation by being a plain fetch.

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 clear context: you need a Proof account, must set PROOF_API_KEY, and start_login does not open this tool. It also implies you use it when you already have a delegation id or handle. However, it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives such as list_delegations or verify_delegation, so the when-to-use guidance remains implicit.

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