delimit_deliberation_status

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It describes returns but does not state side effects, authentication requirements, or read-only nature. For a status check tool, the read-only hint is missing, leaving agents uncertain about mutability.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, and every sentence adds value. No redundant or missing information for a zero-parameter tool with an output schema.

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?

For a simple status check with no parameters and an output schema, the description adequately specifies return values. However, it omits potential edge cases (e.g., what happens if no deliberation usage exists) and does not leverage the output schema annotation hint.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. Baseline is 4 because schema coverage is trivially complete. The description does not need to elaborate on parameters.

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 checks deliberation usage and mode, with specific verb 'Check' and resource 'deliberation usage and mode'. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like delimit_cost_alert or delimit_license_status by focusing on deliberation-specific quotas and mode.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention preconditions, when not to use it, or how it relates to other status-checking tools. This forces the agent to infer usage from the tool name.

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