delimit_executor

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

Given no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: bounded whitelist of actions, audit logging, dry-run default with live flag, and a pause mechanism via file touch. This comprehensive disclosure exceeds expectations.

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 detailed but well-organized into short paragraphs covering purpose, execution flow, safety, and control mechanisms. Slightly verbose but each sentence adds value; could be tightened without losing clarity.

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?

With 4 parameters, an output schema, and no annotations, the description covers execution flow, safety features, logging, and control mechanisms thoroughly. The agent has sufficient information to use the tool correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description mentions 'live=True' and 'action=poll' but does not add significant new meaning beyond the schema's parameter descriptions. No deduction needed.

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 explicitly states 'Run approved work orders from the dashboard inbox (Pro, Worker Pool v2)', naming the resource (work orders) and action (run). It provides specific context about the workflow, clearly distinguishing the tool's role from siblings.

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 explains when to use the tool: to execute approved work orders, with dry-run as default and live=True for actual execution. It mentions the dashboard approval process and polling mechanism, but does not explicitly list when not to use it or point to specific alternatives among siblings.

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