delimit_lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses side effects ('writes evidence on breaking findings; auto-chains semver classification and governance evaluation') and behavior under dry_run ('suppresses evidence, notifications, and governance – returns violations + semver only'). Also explains URL handling ('fetched once into a tempfile (size cap, SSRF guard)'). This is comprehensive.

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 compact with four short paragraphs. Every sentence adds value: purpose, usage guidelines, side effects, parameter specs. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and no unnecessary wording is present.

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 complexity (4 parameters, side effects, URL input), the description covers all essential aspects: input types, dry_run mode, evidence writing, and governance chaining. An output schema exists, so the description need not detail return values. The description is sufficiently complete for an agent to 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%, and the description adds significant meaning beyond the schema. It explains the purpose of dry_run (suppressing side effects) and the behavior for spec args (URL handling). While the schema already describes parameters, the description provides vital context for correct usage, justifying a score above baseline.

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 'Lint two OpenAPI specs for breaking changes and policy violations.' It specifies the verb (lint), resource (two OpenAPI specs), and scope (breaking changes and policy). It distinguishes from siblings by contrasting with delimit_diff (raw changes) and delimit_diff_report (HTML rendering), indicating this tool enforces policy.

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 ('as the primary CI gate before merging API spec changes') and when not to use ('for raw change data – use delimit_diff – or quality scoring – delimit_spec_health'). Provides alternative tool names, giving clear guidance for agent decision-making.

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