delimit_collision_check

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only states the high-level purpose without explaining what happens when a collision is detected, how the claim/release actions work, or what the output contains. The presence of an output schema implies some structure but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the basic function.

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 two sentences, very concise and front-loaded with the purpose. It wastes no words, though it could be restructured to include more behavioral details without becoming lengthy. Efficiency is high, but it sacrifices some necessary information for brevity.

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 parameter count (4) and the presence of an output schema, the description is minimal. It does not explain the claim/release actions, the expected output structure, or how the tool integrates with the broader delimit system. An AI agent would lack sufficient context to use the tool effectively beyond the basic check action.

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% with each parameter having a description, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it only reiterates the purpose. The action parameter's values (check/claim/release) are not elaborated on in the description.

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 detects and prevents two AI models from editing the same file. The verb 'detect' and 'prevent' combined with the resource 'editing the same file' make the purpose specific and distinguishable from sibling tools like delimit_drift_check or delimit_agent_check, which have different focuses.

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 advises 'Call before editing a file to check if another model is already working on it,' providing a clear usage context. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool or mention alternatives, but for a simple collision check tool, this guidance is sufficient.

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