ep_verify_delegation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals the tool is a read-only check by using 'verify' and specifies return states (valid/expired/not_found). While it doesn't detail side effects or permissions, these are minimal for a verification tool.

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?

Two concise sentences with no fluff. The first sentence states the purpose, the second gives usage guidance and expected returns. Every sentence adds value.

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's simplicity and lack of output schema, the description covers the essential: what it does, when to use it, and what it returns. It could be slightly more detailed about the return structure, but it's adequate.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage context but no additional parameter details beyond what the schema already provides. The schema already describes 'action_type' as being within delegation scope.

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 (verify), the specific resource (delegation from a principal for a specific action), and the context (before accepting a task). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like ep_verify_commit by focusing on delegation verification.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('before accepting a task from an agent claiming to act on behalf of a human'), providing clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like other verification tools.

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