delimit_evidence_collect

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

No annotations are present, and the description only repeats the tool's name essentially. It fails to disclose behavioral traits such as side effects, required permissions, or whether the collection is destructive. The description adds no value beyond the name.

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 a single sentence, which is concise and to the point. However, it is too brief to be fully informative, yet it does not contain unnecessary words.

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 complexity of the sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description should provide more context (e.g., what constitutes 'evidence artifacts', how collection works). The current description is insufficient for an agent to properly understand the tool's role.

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 input schema already provides descriptions for both parameters (target and evidence_type) with 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning or context to these parameters, so it meets the baseline but does not improve it.

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 action ('collect') and the resource ('evidence artifacts') and specifies the domain ('governance'). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delimit_evidence_verify', which adds some ambiguity.

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 mentions 'governance (Pro)' hinting at a specific use case and tier restriction, but it provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it state prerequisites or exclusions.

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