delimit_repo_analyze

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

With no annotations provided, the description discloses important behavioral traits: 'Side effects: read-only on the resolved local path. Accepts local path, "owner/repo" shorthand, or GitHub URL — remote inputs are shallow-cloned into a tempdir.' It also notes the tool is experimental and Pro. However, it lacks detail on output or potential temporary file cleanup.

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 very concise and well-structured: a brief purpose statement, followed by usage guidelines, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence adds value, and the most critical 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 only one parameter and an output schema (not shown), the description covers input sources, side effects, and usage. It mentions experimental and Pro status. It does not describe the output format, but the output schema likely handles that. Slightly incomplete regarding duration or resource usage.

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' has 100% schema description coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds that it accepts local path, 'owner/repo', or GitHub URL, which is already included in the schema description. No significant additional semantics are 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's purpose: 'Analyze repository structure and quality (experimental) (Pro).' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly contrasts with siblings: 'delimit_repo_diagnose is a quick smoke test; this is the deeper structural audit.' This distinguishes it effectively.

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 and when-NOT-to-use 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 is exemplary usage direction.

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