Delimit Os Status

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

Annotations already flag readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, and the description adds important behavioral context beyond them: the call is gated by require_premium, unlicensed calls return an upgrade error without executing, and it invokes backends.os_bridge.get_status. This fully discloses side effects and failure behavior.

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-organized with labeled sections and front-loads the core purpose. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary because the sibling contrast partially repeats the when-not-to-use guidance and the backend call detail is extra, but every section is still informative.

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?

For a zero-parameter read-only tool with an output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: purpose, usage timing, alternatives, exclusions, side effects, license prerequisite, failure behavior, and return type. Nothing critical is missing.

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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing to document. The description explicitly states 'Args: None', which is correct and sufficient. Baseline 4 applies for zero-parameter tools.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Report overall Delimit platform status (plans, tasks, tokens)'. It also explicitly differentiates this tool from delimit_gov_health and delimit_os_gates, so an agent can distinguish it from the most confusable siblings.

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 provides explicit 'When to use' (session start/status dashboard) and 'When NOT to use' conditions with named alternatives (delimit_gov_health, delimit_os_gates). This is direct, actionable routing guidance that removes ambiguity.

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