get_delegation

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 states this is a 'Get' operation, implying it's likely read-only, but doesn't confirm safety aspects like whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, or what happens on errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes the key parameter detail. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description is somewhat complete but has gaps. It lacks behavioral context due to no annotations and minimal parameter semantics. For a simple lookup tool, it's adequate but not fully helpful.

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 description coverage is 0%, meaning the input schema provides no descriptions for the single parameter 'name'. The description adds some meaning by specifying it's a 'library:name' identifier, but this is minimal—it doesn't explain the format, examples, or constraints of the 'name' parameter. With low coverage, the description doesn't adequately compensate.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('full details for a delegation'), and it specifies the lookup method ('by its library:name'). However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this from its sibling 'list_delegations' (which likely lists multiple delegations) or 'run_delegation' (which likely executes a delegation), so it misses full sibling differentiation.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus its siblings. It doesn't mention alternatives like 'list_delegations' for listing multiple delegations or 'run_delegation' for execution, nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This leaves the agent without clear usage direction.

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