delegate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job by explaining that the tool monitors until 'finished, blocked, or expired' and that 'progress updates are reported as the session executes.' It also clarifies side effects for parameters like idempotent and unlisted. Minor gaps remain, such as potential long-running behavior or cancellation details, but the core behavior is well covered.

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 well structured with a lead sentence, a behavior overview, a clearly formatted Args list, and a Returns section. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 10 parameters: no redundant sentences, each line adds value. The front-loaded purpose makes it easy to scan.

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 complex tool with 10 parameters, no annotations, and an output schema, this description is thorough. It covers the tool's full lifecycle (creation, monitoring, terminal states), parameter semantics, and what the return contains. It leaves little ambiguity about when to invoke it and what to expect, especially given the rich parameter explanations.

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 schema descriptions are empty (0% coverage), so the description must fully explain parameters, and it does. Every schema parameter gets a meaningful explanation, and it adds crucial nuances like 'None uses all, empty list uses none' for knowledge_ids and secret_ids. This goes well beyond the schema and fully compensates for the lack of structured descriptions.

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 opens with a clear, specific action: 'Delegate a task to Devin and monitor until completion.' It further explains it creates a new Devin session and monitors it, which succinctly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_session and list_sessions. The verb and resource are explicit and unambiguous.

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 clearly implies when to use the tool: to start a new task and monitor it. It mentions creating a new session and monitoring until a terminal state, which sets expectations. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so it misses the 'explicit exclusions/alternatives' bar for a 5.

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