delimit_gov_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must fully convey behavioral traits. It correctly indicates a read operation ('Get'), but does not disclose side effects, authorization requirements, rate limits, or error handling. The presence of an output schema is implied but not mentioned. The transparency is adequate for a simple retrieval but could be improved.

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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource, making it easily parseable. Every element serves a purpose: verb, object, scope, and tier indicator.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description is very brief. It covers the basic purpose but does not explain the policy being retrieved, the format, or the limitation to 'Pro' users. For a tool with minimal parameters and no annotations, it is moderately complete but leaves room for confusion about the returned data and preconditions.

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 input schema has 0% description coverage, and the description does not elaborate on the 'repo' parameter beyond implying it refers to a repository. The default value of '.' and type string are included in the schema, but the description adds no additional meaning about format or allowed values. This is insufficient given the low schema coverage.

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 action ('Get'), resource ('governance policy'), and scope ('for a repository'). It also includes '(Pro)' indicating a product tier, which adds context. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this tool from sibling governance tools like delimit_gov_evaluate or delimit_gov_health, though the verb 'Get' implies a read operation.

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 usage guidelines are provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, allowed inputs, or when not to use it. This leaves the agent with no decision support beyond the basic action.

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