delimit_docs_validate

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

With no annotations, the description bears the full burden. It lists the checks performed, which is helpful, but does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what side effects (if any) exist, or any requirements (e.g., project root). It also doesn't mention error conditions.

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 with two sentences, no fluff, and front-loads the purpose. Every sentence adds value, making it efficient for an agent to parse.

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 that an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values. However, for a validation tool, it would be helpful to hint at the output format (e.g., issues list, pass/fail). The description is otherwise complete for the tool's purpose.

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 schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter 'target' with a description 'Project path.' The tool's description does not add any additional meaning beyond this. Baseline of 3 is appropriate since the schema already documents the parameter adequately.

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: validating documentation quality. It specifies the exact checks (README existence, docstring coverage, broken links), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like delimit_docs_generate and other validation tools.

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 the tool is used for documentation validation, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives or mention any prerequisites or exclusions. The context is clear but lacks direction on when not to use it.

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