get_delegations

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It explains what data is returned (things you've asked others to do) and gives concrete examples. However, it doesn't describe whether results are sorted, paginated, or whether read-only guarantees apply. Since no annotations exist, a 3 is appropriate—the description adds some transparency but not deep behavioral detail.

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 compact: one opening sentence plus three illustrative examples. The examples are useful and take minimal space. No wasted words or redundancy.

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 is a simple filtered listing with only 2 optional parameters, full schema coverage, and an output schema present, the description is reasonably complete. The distinction between owned vs. delegated tasks could be clearer given the many sibling commitment/delegation tools, but for its complexity level the description covers the essential semantics. The tool has an output schema, so return format doesn't need describing.

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% and both parameters have descriptions in the schema. The description itself doesn't add parameter detail, but with full schema coverage the baseline is 3. The description's examples (client report, review contract) help the agent understand what 'delegated' means conceptually, slightly enriching parameter interpretation. But the parameters are documented in the schema.

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 "Get tasks you've delegated to others" with a specific verb+resource. The examples of delegated tasks further clarify what constitutes a delegation. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish from siblings like get_delegations_to_person, get_overdue_delegations, or get_all_commitments, though the scope (things you delegated) is clear.

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 conveys that this shows delegations you've initiated but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this vs. alternatives like get_delegations_to_person, get_overdue_delegations, or get_my_commitments. The examples imply it's a general listing, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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