get_delegations_to_person

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 doesn't clarify whether this is a read-only operation, whether include_completed changes pagination or performance, what happens when the email has no delegations, or the return format—despite an output schema existing. Missing behavioral context like whether it only returns active delegations by default.

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 with zero filler. It's appropriately minimal for what it offers, though it could have used the space to add distinguishing guidance without becoming verbose.

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 an output schema present, return-value documentation is partially covered, but the description omits key operational details: default filtering behavior (completed excluded by default?), what distinguishes it from get_delegations and search_delegations, and edge-case handling for invalid emails. For a tool with many close siblings, this is under-specified for reliable selection and invocation.

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 description coverage is 100%, so both params (email, include_completed) are already documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond naming the filter target ('specific person'). The 'include_completed' default behavior (false) is not clarified in the description—whether the default returns only open delegations would need to be inferred.

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 states 'Get delegations assigned to a specific person,' which identifies the verb (get), resource (delegations), and filter (assigned to a specific person). However, it doesn't differentiate from close siblings like get_delegations, search_delegations, or get_delegations_to_person vs get_waiting_summary—the scope distinction is minimal and doesn't articulate whether this overlaps with get_delegations for a person filter.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus similar delegation tools like get_delegations, search_delegations, get_overdue_delegations, or get_waiting_summary. No exclusions or alternative tool suggestions are provided, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate selection among many similar delegation-list tools.

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