Server defines 5 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but exhibits significant quality gaps. Tool names lack consistent verb-noun structure (agent.info, agent.delegate, agent.send are acceptable; delegate_task and team_run are vague). Descriptions are present but generic (10-80 chars, below the 50-200 char baseline for LLM optimization). Parameter descriptions exist but lack constraint details (no enums, ranges, or format specs). No documented output schemas. Error handling is absent, no recovery guidance or categorization. Virtual tools (delegate_task, team_run) are dynamically generated with descriptions that include available options, which is good, but lack input validation hints. Overall pattern adherence is weak; most tools would benefit from richer descriptions, explicit constraints, and error handling.

• Document output schemas for all tools. E.g., agent.info should return {agent_id: string, profile: string, pid: number, inbox_depth: number}. This enables LLMs to chain calls and extract needed fields.
• Add constraint details to parameter descriptions. E.g., 'task (string, 1-2000 chars): The task description. Avoid URLs and special characters.' Use enums for profile and team names.
• Expand tool descriptions to 100-150 chars. Include WHAT (returns agent identity), WHEN (call before delegating to understand current state), and WHAT NEXT (use agent_id in subsequent calls).
• Implement error handling with recovery hints. E.g., if profile not found, return 'Profile "xyz" not found. Available: [list]. Did you mean one of these?'
• Rename delegate_task → delegate_to_profile and team_run → run_team_task for clarity. Names should signal action (verb) and target (noun).