unconstrained_delegation

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only mentions 'requête vérifiée' (verified query), which suggests safety but does not explain that this executes a read-only Cypher query, returns specific fields, or any potential performance implications. The underlying query is visible in the schema but not explained in the 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 description is a single sentence with no repetitive or unnecessary content. It is front-loaded with the key information (users and computers with unconstrained delegation). However, it is so brief that it borders on under-specification, which slightly reduces the 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?

The description is too minimal for an agent to confidently choose this tool over the similar constrained_delegation sibling. It does not explain what the tool returns, what the output looks like, or the context in which unconstrained delegation is relevant. Given there is no output schema, the description should do more to set expectations.

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 description coverage is 0%, and the description provides no explanation of the parameters 'k' and 'cy'. An agent seeing only the description would have no idea what these parameters mean or how to modify them. Although defaults are present, the lack of any semantic guidance makes this a significant gap.

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 identifies the resource (unconstrained delegation) and the entity types (users and computers). It implicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling 'constrained_delegation' via the word 'unconstrained'. However, it lacks an explicit verb like 'List' or 'Show', making it a noun phrase rather than a clear action statement.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as constrained_delegation or run_cypher. No use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided, leaving the agent to guess the appropriate context.

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