delimit_executor

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses side effects: 'action="run" / "poll" with live=True fire whitelisted state-changing actions...'. It also details logging to a specific file and the mechanism to pause execution.

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 sections: main purpose, when to use/not use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence provides essential information without redundancy.

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 4 parameters, no required, high schema coverage, and the existence of an output schema, the description is thorough. It covers purpose, usage guidelines, behavioral traits, and safety mechanisms (dry-run, logging, pause), fully equipping an agent 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 the input schema already documents all 4 parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema, such as the audit log identifier purpose for 'executed_by' and the dry-run behavior for 'live'. This extra value justifies a 4.

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: 'Run approved work orders from the dashboard inbox (Pro) (Worker Pool v2).' It also distinguishes from a sibling tool: 'delimit_work_orders reads/closes the work order artifact; this is the run surface that turns approved orders into real GitHub side effects.'

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 explicitly states when to use ('as the autonomous executor for human-approved work orders, or to inspect/pause the executor') and when not to use ('to dispatch new agent work (use delimit_agent_dispatch) or close out a work order (delimit_work_orders complete)'). Provides clear sibling contrast.

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