delimit_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It mentions running three AI models simultaneously and highlights confidence levels for agreements and tradeoffs, but it does not disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, destructive potential, authentication needs, rate limits, or output format beyond vague 'synthesized findings'. The 'Pro' tag is mentioned but not explained.

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 relatively concise with five short lines, starting with a clear purpose. The tagline 'Trust through triangulation' adds flavor but is not essential. It front-loads the key action and outcome, making it easy to scan.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values, but it does cover the nature of the output (synthesized findings, agreements/disagreements). It explains the scope (3 models, 3 lenses) and the process. However, it lacks context on the 'Pro' designation and any limitations or edge cases.

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 already documents all three parameters (target, target_type, lenses). The description adds context by naming the specific lenses (security, correctness, governance) but does not provide additional syntactic or formatting details beyond the schema. Thus, it meets the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 it is a 'code audit' using three AI models with three lenses (security, correctness, governance). It provides a specific verb ('audit') and resource ('code'), and the mention of simultaneous reviews across models distinguishes it from single-model audits. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delimit_security_audit or delimit_review.

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 implies usage for code auditing but provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or conditions where it is not suitable. There is no mention of when not to use it.

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