delegation_status

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

Annotations already cover the read-only, non-destructive safety profile, so the description's added value is elsewhere: it discloses that the Worker profile is returned redacted and that NATIVE indicates a dormant Delegation Worker. Both are behavioral facts an agent cannot derive from the annotations or the empty schema.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the return contents and closing with the one state semantic that needs decoding. No filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of telling the agent what comes back, and it lists the four returned facets plus the NATIVE semantics. It stops short of describing the shape of the response, but for a parameterless status read this is close to complete.

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 tool takes no parameters (empty object schema), so the baseline of 4 applies; there are no argument semantics the description could or should add.

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 verb ('Read') and enumerates the four resources it surfaces: session mode, Worker profile, active Worker progress, and Codex connection status. That is more than a tautology and tells an agent this is an aggregate status read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from sibling single-purpose readers like session_mode_get, worker_status, or codex_status, which appear to overlap.

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 never says when to prefer this combined reader over session_mode_get, worker_status, or codex_status, nor when not to use it. The only interpretive guidance offered is the meaning of the NATIVE value, which explains a return state rather than a usage condition.

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