delimit_policy

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists actions (inspect, validate, simulate) but does not clarify whether any action modifies state, requires special permissions, or has side effects. The term 'simulate' implies read-only, but validation might involve checks without changes; this ambiguity is a gap.

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 with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized for a simple tool, though it could benefit from slightly more detail without becoming verbose.

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 presence of an output schema (not shown but noted), return values are covered. However, the description does not explain the differences between inspect, validate, and simulate, nor does it address any side effects or required context. For a tool with multiple distinct actions, this is insufficient.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema; it merely lists the action types already defined in the 'action' parameter. No extra context for parameters like spec_files or policy_file is provided.

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 inspects, validates, or simulates governance policy configuration, providing a specific verb-resource combination. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like delimit_gov_policy or delimit_gov_verify, which focus on different aspects of governance.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus other policy-related tools. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage without support.

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