list_delegations

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

With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains the derived effective_status/is_valid semantics, when status diverges from stored values, why status=active can still return expired delegations, and the access requirement. This goes well beyond a generic listing description.

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 main action is front-loaded, followed by essential caveats and an actionable ACCESS section. Every sentence adds information needed for correct use; there is no filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description covers the critical return semantics, the filter limitation, the token retrieval alternative, and the access setup. An agent has enough context to select 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value for the status parameter, warning that it filters only the stored status and not the derived effective_status, which is a non-obvious pitfall an agent would otherwise miss.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'List your own delegations with optional filters.' It clearly scopes the operation to the caller's own delegations and distinguishes it from get_delegation, which retrieves a single delegation and its stored token.

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?

It explicitly explains when to use get_delegation instead: tokens are not included in the list. It also states that there is no public enumeration of third-party delegations, and gives concrete access prerequisites (PROOF_API_KEY, restart, and that start_login does not open this tool).

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