delimit_gov_health

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

No annotations are present, so the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It merely states 'Check governance system health' without revealing whether it is read-only, what checks are performed, or any side effects. Important behavioral traits are missing.

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 very short (one sentence), which is concise but at the expense of informativeness. It front-loads the purpose but lacks structure and depth. While not verbose, it is underspecified.

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 tool (many sibling governance tools, an output schema, and a parameter), the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, scope, or how it differs from similar tools. The agent would need to infer too much.

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 only parameter 'repo' (with default '.') is not described at all in the description. With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain the parameter's purpose and valid values, but it does not. This leaves the agent without guidance on how to use the parameter.

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 'Check governance system health' clearly indicates the action and resource (governance system health) but is vague and does not distinguish from sibling tools like delimit_gov_evaluate, delimit_gov_status, or delimit_gov_verify. A more specific description of what 'health' entails would improve clarity.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or situations where this tool is inappropriate. The description offers no usage direction.

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