List delegated tasks

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses ordering and grouping, but does not state whether the tool is read-only, has performance implications, or returns partial results. The lack of mutation or safety context is a gap.

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 concise sentence that includes key details (ordering, grouping). No wasted words, though it could be slightly more informative 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?

The tool lists delegated jobs from a server's lifetime with no output schema. The description is sparse: it does not explain what fields are returned, pagination behavior, or how grouping works. More context is needed for an agent to use this tool effectively.

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 the schema descriptions are clear for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. However, the description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., does not explain what 'state' values mean in context, how limit interacts with grouping, or defaults).

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 delegated jobs, specifying order (newest first) and grouping (by conversation). It distinguishes from siblings like delegate_status or delegate_result, but could be more explicit about what 'delegated jobs' refers to in context.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings such as delegate_status or delegate_cancel. The description does not mention prerequisites, typical use cases, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer based on name alone.

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