delimit_docs_validate

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. It lists the checks performed but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, if it modifies files, or side effects. For a validation tool, this is a significant gap.

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?

Two concise sentences with no unnecessary words. The first states the purpose, the second lists specific checks. Ideal structure.

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 simple input (one optional parameter) and that it has an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool validates. However, it does not mention if there are any prerequisites or limitations on the checks.

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 a description for 'target'. The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, but the context (checks on documentation) implies the parameter is a project path. 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 validates documentation quality and lists specific checks (README existence, docstring coverage, broken links). It is distinct from sibling tools like delimit_docs_generate (which generates docs) and delimit_data_validate (which validates data).

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 implies usage for verifying documentation quality, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or provide alternatives. The context is clear enough for an agent to infer appropriate situations.

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