Delimit Repo Config Audit

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds value beyond them by flagging the tool as 'experimental' and disclosing that remote inputs are shallow-cloned, plus naming the call path via backends.repo_bridge.config_audit. A minor gap is the absence of failure-mode disclosure for invalid or unreachable repo targets.

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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects). The core purpose is front-loaded immediately, and every sentence contributes meaningful information — the experimental warning and side-effect disclosure each earn their place.

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 a single fully-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers all essentials: purpose, routing against siblings, accepted input formats, remote handling behavior, and side effects. Nothing an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly 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 coverage is 100%, so the single 'target' parameter is already fully documented in the input schema. The description's mention of accepted formats (local path, owner/repo, GitHub URL) largely repeats schema content; the only added meaning is the shallow-clone behavior for remote inputs, which is more behavioral than parameter-semantic. The baseline 3 is appropriate.

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+resource phrase — 'Audit repository configuration for compliance' — which precisely states the tool's function. It further distinguishes from siblings by contrasting 'delimit_repo_config_validate checks well-formedness; this checks compliance'.

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?

Includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections with named alternatives: delimit_repo_config_validate for structural validity and delimit_repo_analyze for full quality analysis. The sibling contrast paragraph reinforces the routing decision, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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