veto_delegate

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint=true, so the description's focus on returning only a summary adds value beyond what annotations convey. The description does not contradict annotations and clarifies the tool's non-mutating behavior by emphasizing 'returns only a compact summary'. No mention of auth or destructive effects, but readOnlyHint covers safety.

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?

Two sentences with zero fluff. The first sentence defines the core action and key differentiator, the second gives usage guidance. Every word earns its place, and the structure is front-loaded.

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?

For a tool with 5 parameters (2 required) and no output schema, the description explains the key behavior (returns summary) and usage context. It does not detail return format or pagination, but the schema covers parameters. Slightly better than average but not fully comprehensive.

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 all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds no additional meaning beyond stating the overall purpose; it does not elaborate on specific parameters. Thus it meets the baseline of 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 verb 'Delegates' and the resource 'subtask to a specialist agent', and uniquely distinguishes by noting it returns only a compact summary instead of full output. This differentiates it from sibling tools that may return full results or have different purposes.

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 explicitly advises use when 'orchestrating multi-step work' to avoid context pollution with verbose output, and mentions the 'boomerang delegation pattern.' It lacks explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives among siblings, but provides clear context for appropriate usage.

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