Delimit Repo Diagnose

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful context: gated by require_premium, explicitly 'read-only on the repo', experimental output schema, and backend call name. The description is fully consistent with the annotations and adds non-redundant behavioral detail.

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 yet information-dense: purpose, usage windows, exclusions, sibling contrast, side effects, gating, and experimental status are all covered in a few short labeled segments. No filler or tautology is present.

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 single-optional-parameter, output-schema-backed tool with rich annotations, the description covers everything an agent needs to select and invoke it correctly: what it does, when to use it, when not to, safety profile, and access requirements. Nothing critical 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?

The single parameter 'target' is already fully documented in the schema at 100% coverage, including default '.'. The description does not need to add more parameter detail, so baseline 3 applies. No contradiction or gap exists here.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Diagnose repository health issues', and clarifies it is a 'quick health-check pass'. It explicitly contrasts with the deeper structural audit of delimit_repo_analyze, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

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?

Gives a concrete trigger ('before a commit or push') and lists examples of detected problems. It also names when NOT to use it, pointing to delimit_repo_analyze and delimit_repo_config_validate as alternatives. This is explicit routing guidance.

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