list_recent_delegations

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It discloses the read-only nature (without re-running), sorting (most recent first), truncation of results, and conditional cost reporting. It does not mention pagination or error behavior, but for a simple read-only listing tool these are minor omissions; the disclosed traits exceed typical descriptions.

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 moderately concise, listing the returned fields in a parenthetical that is useful but slightly dense. The core purpose is stated upfront, and the parameter doc is separated. It could be tightened by moving the field list to a separate line, but it remains efficient and well-organized.

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?

The tool has one optional parameter, no annotations, and an output schema (not provided). The description covers the return semantics (fields, ordering, truncation, cost condition) and the read-only intent. Given the simplicity, nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'limit'. It does so explicitly: 'Max number of records to return (default 20).' This adds full semantic meaning beyond the bare schema field, making the tool usable without additional inference.

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 lists recent delegate_task / delegate_agentic_task calls, enumerates the returned fields (backend, model, task, duration, iterations, success, token usage, USD cost, truncated result), and specifies ordering (most recent first). It also states the intended purpose—answering what a delegated model actually did—which distinguishes it from sibling tools that create delegations or fetch full transcripts.

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 implies a clear use case for inspecting prior delegations without re-running them, but it does not explicitly contrast with siblings like get_delegation_transcript or delegate_task. It lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance, though the mention of 'without re-running anything' strongly suggests a read-only inspection context.

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