ps_delegate

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 mentions 'enforces inheritance rules and constraint propagation,' which hints at some behavioral traits, but it lacks details on permissions needed, error handling, side effects, or what happens upon delegation. This is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters and complex operations.

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 very concise with two sentences that are front-loaded and to the point. Every word contributes to the core idea without unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient and well-structured.

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 complexity (6 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover parameter meanings, return values, error conditions, or detailed behavioral context, which are crucial for effective tool use in this multi-agent delegation scenario.

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%, meaning none of the 6 parameters are documented in the schema. The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema—it doesn't explain what parameters like 'parentFrame', 'childFrame', or 'inheritanceMode' represent or how they affect delegation. This leaves parameters largely unexplained.

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 action ('delegate a task') and the entities involved ('from parent agent to child agent'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'ps_delegate_list' or 'ps_delegate_revoke', which would require more specific context about what delegation entails versus listing or revoking delegations.

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 mentions 'enforces inheritance rules and constraint propagation,' which implies some context for when to use it, but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'ps_execute' or other delegation-related tools. No clear exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving usage ambiguous.

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