_delimit_obs_impl

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'Pro for metrics/logs/status,' indicating a licensing requirement, which is a behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose side effects, permission needs, or that this appears to be an internal implementation (underscore prefix). Behavioral transparency is minimal.

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 concise at two sentences, but it lacks structure and depth. The first sentence is a broad statement, the second merely lists actions. Important information like parameter details or output expectations is missing. It is not as organized as it could be.

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 (7 parameters, multiple actions, output schema exists), the description is strikingly incomplete. It fails to explain the output format, the relationship to sibling tools, or provide examples. Despite high schema coverage, the description does not give a complete understanding of the tool's usage and behavior.

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 input schema adequately describes each parameter. The description adds no new semantic meaning beyond listing the action categories. It does not elaborate on parameter usage or provide examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states 'Manage observability: metrics, logs, alerts, status' and lists actions, giving a general sense of capability. However, it doesn't clarify how this tool differs from the sibling tools like delimit_obs_alerts, delimit_obs_logs, etc., which also handle these actions. The purpose is somewhat vague and overlapping with existing specialized 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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus the specific observability tools, nor does it mention any context or prerequisites. Agents are left without direction on appropriate scenarios.

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