List Agent Delegations

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the key behavioral trait that signed delegation payloads remain encrypted and are not returned, which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about permissions, scope (local only), pagination, or ordering, so a read operation's behavioral surface is only partially covered.

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?

Two tight sentences, no filler. The most important constraint (encrypted payloads not returned) is front-loaded after the core action.

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?

Covers the essentials for a list tool: what it lists and what it does not return. But with no annotations and no output schema, it could usefully say what the metadata includes (delegation ID, status, chain) and whether results are scoped to the local agent. Adequate but with clear gaps for a tool in a crowded delegation lifecycle family.

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?

All three filter parameters are already documented at 100% schema coverage with clear descriptions and an enum for status. The description adds no filter semantics, but the schema fully supplies them, so the baseline for high coverage applies. Slight uplift over pure baseline because the description clarifies these are optional filters in effect.

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?

States a specific verb (List) and a specific resource (local agent delegation metadata), which is clear. It hints at the sibling boundary with agent_get_delegation (single vs. list) but does not explicitly distinguish itself from agent_get_delegation or the other delegation lifecycle tools.

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?

No guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as agent_get_delegation, agent_prepare_delegation, or the request/complete signature tools. The description reads as a bare statement of behavior with no routing context.

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