delimit_gov_policy

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It explicitly states read-only, mentions side effects (read-only on policy storage, gated by require_premium returning license payload if unlicensed). This is comprehensive for behavioral disclosure.

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?

Very concise and well-structured with clear sections. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidelines, sibling contrast, side effects. No 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 tool's simplicity (single parameter, read-only), the description covers purpose, usage, side effects, and contrasts with sibling. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Complete for an agent to select and invoke 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 adds context about 'repository (Pro)' but does not elaborate on the 'repo' parameter beyond what schema provides (filesystem path). Thus minimal added value.

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?

Clearly states 'Read the active governance policy for a repository (Pro)' with a specific verb and resource. Contrasts with sibling delimit_gov_evaluate, differentiating that this returns the policy itself while the other runs an action against it.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections guide the agent. Clearly states to not mutate policy, as the tool is read-only. Provides sibling contrast for alternative tool.

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