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 states the action ('List') and return type ('JSON array of DelegationNode objects'), but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, side effects, or how the 'current operator token' is determined, which is critical for a tool that likely involves authentication and data retrieval.

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 that front-loads the core action and resource, with no wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a tool with no parameters, making it easy to scan and understand 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?

Given the complexity implied by terms like 'delegation tree' and 'operator token', and with no annotations or output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what a DelegationNode is, how the tree is structured, or any behavioral traits, leaving gaps for effective tool use in a broader context.

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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description appropriately doesn't add param info, maintaining focus on the tool's purpose and output, which aligns with the baseline for zero parameters.

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 ('List') and resource ('active delegation tree rooted at the current operator token'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'sint__servers' or 'sint__pending', which might also involve listing operations, so it misses full sibling distinction.

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 alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context for 'current operator token', or compare to siblings like 'sint__servers' for server listings or 'sint__pending' for pending delegations, leaving usage unclear.

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