delimit_gov_new_task

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

Despite no annotations, the description thoroughly explains side effects: licensing gating (require_premium), backend invocation, writing a task record with specific fields, and response routing. It also notes the record carries title, scope, risk_level, repo path, and timestamp. This is full disclosure beyond what annotations would provide.

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 (purpose, when to use, when not, side effects). It is longer than minimal but every sentence adds value, providing necessary context 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 the output schema exists and parameter descriptions are complete, the description covers the pipeline context, licensing, and side effects. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to understand the tool's role and effects, though the output schema details are not repeated (not required).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context for the pipeline but does not significantly enhance parameter meaning beyond what the schema already describes (e.g., 'scope: Description of what the task covers'). It meets the baseline without exceeding.

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 begins with 'Create a governance-classed task with risk tier and scope (Pro).' This provides a specific verb (create), resource (governance-classed task), and key differentiating attributes (risk tier, scope). It distinguishes from siblings like delimit_ledger_add and delimit_gov_evaluate, earning a top score.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, stating the exact condition (after delimit_gov_evaluate returns 'gating required') and listing alternatives for free-form work (delimit_ledger_add) and other pipeline steps (delimit_gov_run, delimit_gov_verify). This provides comprehensive guidance.

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