delegate_ask

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 explicitly states the operation is read-only and does not create or alter conversation session state, which is critical safety information. However, it does not describe the output format or any potential side effects beyond the read-only guarantee, so a full 5 is not warranted.

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 that front-loads the most important information (read-only, fast, purpose) and contains no redundant phrases. Every word earns its place.

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 straightforward read-only nature and full schema documentation, the description adequately covers purpose and key behavior. The only gap is the absence of any mention of the return value or response interpretation, which could be helpful since there is no output schema, but this is a minor omission for a query-style tool.

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 has 100% parameter description coverage, so all six parameters are already documented. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond the schema, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage without extra value.

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 tool executes a fast, read-only question, diagnostic, or code review via a CLI agent, and explicitly notes it does not alter conversation session state. This specific verb-resource-scope combination distinguishes it from task-execution siblings like delegate_task, even without naming them.

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 clear context for when to use it (read-only questions, diagnostics, reviews) but does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternative tools. It implies a boundary against mutating tasks, but an agent would have to infer that from the read-only wording rather than receiving explicit routing guidance.

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