SINT Protocol

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behavioral traits: it creates a new token (implies mutation), specifies depth constraints (parent.depth + 1; max depth 3), and mentions the return value (tokenId). It could improve by addressing potential side effects or error conditions, but it covers core behavior well.

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 highly concise and front-loaded, with two sentences that efficiently convey the tool's purpose, constraints, and outcome. Every sentence earns its place by providing essential information without redundancy or fluff.

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 complexity (delegation with depth limits), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is moderately complete. It covers the core operation and constraints but lacks details on error handling, security implications, or the format of the returned tokenId. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps for a mutation 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 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters thoroughly. The description does not add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't clarify format for subagentId or toolScope patterns). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Issue an attenuated capability token to a sub-agent') and resource ('granting it a reduced tool scope'), distinguishing it from siblings like sint__issue_token (which likely issues tokens without delegation) and sint__list_delegations (which lists rather than creates). It precisely defines the operation's purpose.

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 clear context for when to use this tool: for delegating capabilities to sub-agents with depth constraints (max depth 3). However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., vs. sint__issue_token for non-delegated tokens), missing full explicit guidance.

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