delimit_agent_check

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It only says 'check if allowed' without describing side effects, error behavior, or whether it's purely read-only. For a permission check, it's reasonable to assume no mutation, but this is not stated.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences. The first sentence defines the purpose, and the second provides usage guidance. No extraneous information.

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 tool has an output schema (not shown) and parameters are fully documented, the description is adequate but leaves gaps: it does not explain the return value (e.g., boolean), nor does it confirm that the tool is non-mutating. For a check tool, this is minimally sufficient.

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 already provides descriptions for both parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds minimal extra meaning ('Pro' qualifier) and does not elaborate on parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers.

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 tool checks if a model is allowed to perform an action, specifying verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delimit_agent_dispatch or delimit_agent_status by focusing on permission checking.

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 explicitly advises using this tool before executing sensitive operations, providing clear context. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is actionable.

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