delimit_deploy_plan

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully shoulders the burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly describes side effects: auto-chaining of delimit_security_audit and delimit_gov_evaluate, with fail-closed behavior on critical findings (halting and returning status='blocked'). This provides essential behavioral transparency beyond basic read/write intent.

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 well-structured with clear headings for usage guidelines, sibling contrast, and side effects. It is concise—every sentence adds value—and front-loads the core purpose. No redundant or extraneous information.

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 tool's moderate complexity (3 params, auto-chaining behavior, output schema present), the description covers all necessary context: when to use, side effects, and failure modes. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, and the description adequately addresses the tool's role in the deployment pipeline.

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% and each parameter already has a clear description. The tool description does not add additional parameter details beyond what the schema provides, but the schema descriptions are sufficient. A score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not degrade understanding but adds no extra value for 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 the tool's purpose: 'Generate a deploy plan with security preflight (Pro).' It specifies a concrete action (generate a deploy plan) and a key differentiator (security preflight). It also explicitly contrasts with sibling tools delimit_deploy_build and delimit_deploy_publish, making its distinct role unmistakable.

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 explicit guidance on when to use ('as the first step in the deploy chain') and when not to use ('to actually build images' or 'to ship code'). It names specific alternatives (delimit_deploy_build, delimit_deploy_publish), enabling the agent to make an informed choice.

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