Classify a task's eligibility for bounded delegation using instruction, kind, and risk—no file access or model request required. Helps decide if a low-risk text task can be delegated.
Classify eligibility for bounded delegation without reading files or sending a model request.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | ||
| risk | Yes | ||
| instruction | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a more specific behavioral constraint: it performs no file reads and no model request. This goes beyond the generic annotations and helps the agent understand the tool's cost and side-effect profile. No contradiction with annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It immediately conveys the core action and key constraints, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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?
With no output schema and no parameter documentation, the description leaves the agent unable to determine what kind or risk values to provide or what the classification result looks like. It is a useful high-level summary but insufficient for correct invocation of a three-required-parameter tool.
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 by explaining instruction, kind, and risk. It does not define any of these parameters, their valid values, or how they map to eligibility. The phrase 'bounded delegation' provides only a vague hint about their purpose.
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 states a specific action: classify eligibility for bounded delegation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it does not read files or send a model request, separating it from workbuddy_read_result and delegate_to_workbuddy. However, 'bounded delegation' is not defined, leaving some ambiguity about the exact scope.
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 this is a pre-delegation eligibility check, especially given the sibling delegate_to_workbuddy. The phrase 'without reading files or sending a model request' suggests it is a lightweight planning step. Yet it never explicitly states when to use this tool versus alternatives or what conditions would make it inappropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.