delimit_audit

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

No annotations provided, so description must carry full burden. It discloses that multiple models are run and findings are synthesized, but does not mention side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether it is read-only. 'Pro' hint suggests cost, but insufficient detail.

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?

Extremely concise: three brief sentences. Front-loaded with key terms. No wasted words.

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?

Tool has 3 parameters and output schema exists. Description covers core purpose and output quality (high-confidence agreements, disagreements surfaced). Missing details on prerequisites or limitations, but sufficient for an audit tool with good schema coverage.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds little beyond schema: it mentions '3 lenses' but doesn't elaborate on target or target_type formats beyond schema descriptions.

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?

Specifically states 'Cross-model code audit' and mentions using 3 models and 3 lenses (security, correctness, governance). This clearly distinguishes it from other audit tools like delimit_security_audit or delimit_gov_evaluate which are single-lens.

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?

Describes when to use: for multi-model, synthesized reviews. The tagline 'Trust through triangulation' implies use case. However, lacks explicit comparison or conditions when not to use this tool versus alternatives like delimit_security_audit.

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