Delimit Repo Analyze

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds meaningful behavioral context: read-only on the resolved local path, remote inputs are shallow-cloned into a tempdir, and the underlying call path is disclosed. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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-structured with clear sections and front-loaded purpose. Every sentence contributes useful guidance, though the final implementation-detail sentence about backends.repo_bridge.analyze is slightly lower-value for an agent deciding whether to call the tool.

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 tool with one parameter, rich annotations, and an output schema, the description covers intent, usage boundaries, side effects, accepted input forms, and remote behavior. Nothing essential for correct invocation 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the target parameter is already well documented. The description adds value by explaining the remote-clone behavior for non-local targets and reinforcing the accepted input formats. This is more than the baseline, though the schema already carries most of the semantic weight.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Analyze repository structure and quality,' and clarifies it is a 'deep audit' covering code structure, language mix, and quality signals. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling delimit_repo_diagnose, making its purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' guidance, directly naming alternatives delimit_repo_diagnose and delimit_repo_config_audit. The sibling contrast further clarifies when this tool is the right choice versus a quick smoke test.

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