ps_delegate_list

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'list delegations', which implies a read-only operation, but does not cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what the output looks like. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste, front-loading the core purpose. It is appropriately sized for a simple list operation, making it highly concise 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 tool has 3 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain parameter usage, return values, or behavioral traits, which are essential for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a complex server environment with many siblings.

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 description does not mention any parameters, and schema description coverage is 0%, with 3 parameters (agentId, role, status) and 2 having enums. The description adds no semantic meaning beyond the schema, but since there are parameters, it does not fully compensate for the coverage gap. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema provides structure, but the description offers no additional context.

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 verb 'list' and the resource 'delegations for an agent', making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ps_delegate' or 'ps_delegate_revoke', which might handle delegation creation or revocation, so it misses full sibling 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'ps_delegate' for creating delegations or 'ps_hold_list' for listing holds. There are no explicit when/when-not statements or named alternatives, leaving usage context implied at best.

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