delimit_gov_run

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

Discloses side effects: gated by require_premium, appends a run record (status transition, timestamp, repo), and routes response through _with_next_steps for orchestrator hints. Also clarifies the tool does not perform the underlying work itself. With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and meets it thoroughly.

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, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence adds necessary 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 the tool's role in a pipeline, 2 parameters, and an existing output schema, the description fully covers the context: pipeline step, licensing gate, side effects, and what the tool does not do. No gaps.

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% and both parameters are described in the schema. The description adds context by clarifying that task_id is required despite not being marked as required in the schema, and explains the repo default. This adds value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Execute a previously created governance task under policy (Pro)' with a clear verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings like delimit_gov_new_task and delimit_gov_verify by specifying its role as step two of a three-step pipeline.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (after delimit_gov_new_task, before delimit_gov_verify) and when not to use (for evaluate, mint, or verify). Provides sibling contrast and the full pipeline sequence.

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