delegate_sessions

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 mentions the output format with [ACTIVE] markers but does not disclose the side effects of 'switch' or 'clear' actions, whether they are destructive, or any prerequisites. The description adds minimal behavioral context beyond what the schema already states.

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 two sentences with zero waste. It front-loads the primary actions (list, inspect, switch) and immediately clarifies the scope ('across backends'). 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?

With no output schema, the description should at least hint at the return format, which it does by mentioning [ACTIVE] markers. However, it does not cover error handling, prerequisites for switching, or the implications of 'clear'. For a management tool with 3 parameters, this is adequate but not exhaustive. It lacks details that could prevent incorrect usage.

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 schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds contextual value by noting 'across backends' and 'multi-turn sessions', but it does not provide additional parameter-specific semantics beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the high schema coverage.

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's purpose: to list, inspect, or switch multi-turn agent sessions. It adds 'across backends' which distinguishes it from sibling tools like agy_sessions that might be specific to one backend. The verb+resource combination is specific 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 explains what the tool does but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. It doesn't mention that this is the preferred tool for cross-backend session management or when to choose a sibling like delegate_task or agy_sessions. No exclusions or when-not conditions are given.

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