delimit_intel_query

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only states the search capability but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, what is returned (metadata or full snapshots), potential side effects, authentication requirements, or rate limits. This lack of behavioral detail leaves the agent with incomplete understanding of the tool's impact.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the key information. Every word is essential, and there is no redundant or extraneous content. It efficiently conveys the tool's core function.

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 that an output schema exists and the input schema has 100% coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers the primary search dimensions and fits the tool's complexity. However, the absence of any behavioral or usage guidelines slightly detracts from completeness, but overall it provides sufficient context for a simple search tool.

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 covers 100% of parameter descriptions, so the schema already explains parameters (dataset_id, query, parameters). The description merely echoes these by listing 'keyword, date, or dataset,' adding no new semantic meaning beyond what is in the schema. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not hinder understanding but also does not enhance it.

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 tool's purpose: 'Search saved intel snapshots by keyword, date, or dataset.' It uses a specific verb ('Search') and identifies the resource ('saved intel snapshots') and criteria (keyword, date, dataset). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delimit_intel_dataset_list or delimit_intel_snapshot_ingest, which manage datasets or ingest snapshots, not search them.

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 implies the tool should be used when searching snapshots, but it does not provide explicit guidance on when to use alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of excluded scenarios or comparisons with other intel tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from the name and description alone.

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