delimit_collision_check

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 of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'detect and prevent' but does not explain what happens on detection (e.g., error, block), nor does it describe the 'claim' and 'release' actions that appear in the input schema. The description lacks details on state changes, concurrency, or side effects.

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: two sentences that front-load the purpose. Every word earns its place, with no repetition or fluff.

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?

Despite the rich input schema and presence of an output schema, the description fails to explain the full range of tool behavior. The 'claim' and 'release' actions are not described, leaving the agent to guess their purpose. The tool's complexity (4 params, multiple actions) demands more context to be complete.

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 has 100% description coverage, providing definitions for all four parameters. The description adds minor value by implying that 'check' is the primary action for usage, but it does not elaborate on the meaning of parameters like 'model' or 'task_id' beyond the schema. Baseline 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: detect and prevent two AI models from editing the same file. It uses specific verbs ('detect', 'prevent') and a resource ('file'). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might also deal with file operations, like delimit_context_write.

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 provides clear usage context: 'Call before editing a file to check if another model is already working on it.' This tells the agent when to invoke the tool. It does not mention when not to use it or list alternatives, but the guidance is direct and actionable.

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