verify_delegation

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

As a verification tool, it implies a read-only operation, but no explicit behavioral traits like side effects, idempotency, or required permissions are disclosed. Annotations are absent, so description carries the burden but only states the action.

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?

Single clear sentence, no redundant information. Well front-loaded with the key action.

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 verification tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately conveys the purpose. Could be more complete by hinting at return values or error conditions, but not necessary.

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% with one parameter fully described. Description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline of 3 applies.

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?

Description clearly states the tool verifies a delegation's cryptographic signature and validity, using a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes from siblings like create_delegation and revoke_delegation.

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?

Description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as verify_endorsement or verify_charter. No context on prerequisites or postconditions.

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