timps_delegate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the kernel's internal planning and routing behavior, which is useful. However, it does not describe the structure of the result, potential failure modes, side effects, or whether the operation is synchronous, leaving gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the action, and every sentence earns its place. The example is useful without being verbose, and there is no redundant content.

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 has only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential context: purpose, usage scenario, and internal behavior. However, it does not describe the shape of the structured result or how to effectively use the 'context' parameter, which leaves minor but non-critical gaps for an agent selecting and invoking the tool.

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 provides full descriptions for both parameters (goal and context) with 100% coverage. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond the example goal, which is already explicit in the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline but does not elevate understanding of the parameters.

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 clearly states the tool's function: delegating a multi-step goal to the TIMPS Agent Kernel. It explains that the kernel plans, routes to specialist agents, and returns a structured result, which distinguishes it from simpler task tools. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like timps_dispatch or timps_run_task, relying on the 'complex goals' example to imply the distinction.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use for complex goals like...' with a concrete example. This gives a clear criterion for when to use the tool. It does not list alternatives or exclusions, but the implication that simple tasks are not appropriate is clear enough.

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