delimit_repo_analyze

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 details side effects ('read-only on the resolved local path'), input handling ('remote inputs are shallow-cloned into a tempdir'), and internal implementation ('Calls backends.repo_bridge.analyze'). This fully discloses the tool's 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 compact and well-structured, with clear sections for purpose, usage, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence adds value, and the most important information 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 tool has one optional parameter and an output schema (context indicates it exists), the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: purpose, usage guidance, parameter behavior, and side effects. No gaps remain.

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 single parameter 'target' is described in the schema with default and type. The description adds value by explaining that remote inputs are shallow-cloned and that the local path is read-only. With 100% schema coverage, the description enhances understanding beyond the schema.

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's purpose: 'Analyze repository structure and quality (experimental).' It explicitly contrasts with sibling tools delimit_repo_diagnose (quick smoke test) and delimit_repo_config_audit (config-only), making it distinguishable.

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 guidance: 'When to use: for a deep audit of a repo... When NOT to use: for a fast health pass (use delimit_repo_diagnose) or config-only audit (delimit_repo_config_audit).' This clearly indicates the appropriate context and alternatives.

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