delimit_next_task

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that safeguard checks exist and possible return actions (BUILD, CONSENSUS, STOP). However, it does not mention whether the tool has side effects (e.g., modifying state) or any destructive/read-only nature beyond the return types.

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 highly concise, with three short sentences covering purpose, context, and return types. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information (what the tool returns) is front-loaded.

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 existence of an output schema (context signal), the description need not detail return values, but it still explains the three possible actions. It covers the context (build loop), safety checks, and operational use. Slightly more detail about the safeguard behavior could improve completeness.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for each parameter (venture, max_risk, session_id). The tool description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 retrieves the next highest-priority open task with safeguard checks. It specifies the context ('part of the autonomous build loop') and distinguishes from siblings like delimit_gov_new_task or delimit_ledger_list by focusing on task selection and progression.

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 explicitly advises calling this tool 'to start or continue working' within the autonomous build loop, providing clear usage context. No explicit when-not-to-use or alternatives are given, but the context strongly implies it's for task advancement.

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