delegation_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It adds useful context by calling the state 'persisted' and 'checkpoint', implying a durable read-only query. However, it does not disclose auth requirements, error behavior, freshness, or whether the state reflects in-flight delegation.

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?

A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word adds meaning: action, resource, persistence qualifier, and scope.

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?

The tool is simple (one required parameter) and has an output schema, so not describing return values is acceptable. However, the missing parameter semantics and absence of any usage guidance leave a meaningful gap for correct invocation.

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% and family_id is only shown with its title. The description mentions 'one family' but does not explain what family_id is, how to obtain it, or what format/value constraints apply.

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 names a specific verb ('Return'), a specific resource ('persisted delegation/checkpoint state'), and a clear scope ('for one family'). This distinguishes it from mutation siblings like authorize_delegation and complete_delegation.

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 gives no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling status/state retrieval tools (status, workspace_status, effective_family_view), the agent is left to guess which one fits its situation.

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