List delegated tasks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently mentions key behaviors: shows jobs from the server's lifetime (all historical jobs), orders newest first, groups by conversation, and includes estimated total spend. This goes beyond a generic 'list' by specifying output structure and a calculated metric, providing useful expectations for the agent.

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?

Single, information-dense sentence that covers purpose, ordering, grouping, and an output summary metric. No wasted words; it front-loads the primary function and key behavioral details.

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 is a simple list operation with two optional parameters well-described in the schema. The description adds value by specifying sort order, grouping, and the spend estimate, which are not in the schema. It lacks information about pagination or default limits, but the schema covers the limit parameter. Overall, sufficient for the tool's simplicity.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage with descriptions for both `limit` and `state`. The description itself does not add meaning beyond what the schema provides; the mention of filtering by state is implied by the parameter but not elaborated. Since coverage is complete, the baseline is 3.

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 show delegated jobs from the server's lifetime, with specific ordering (newest first), grouping (by conversation), and a summary metric (estimated total spend). It uses an action verb ('show') and a resource ('delegated jobs'), and the scope is well-defined, distinguishing it from action-oriented siblings like delegate_start or delegate_cancel.

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 is a list operation for delegated jobs, which differentiates it from the action-oriented siblings (start, followup, status, result, cancel). However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of others, such as delegate_status for checking a single job's status, or mention any preconditions.

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