delimit_review

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It mentions using multiple AI models and consolidating feedback, but does not cover side effects, authentication needs, rate limits, or whether the tool is read-only, which is critical for a tool that sends data to external models.

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 four sentences, well-structured with the core action first, followed by process and output details, then input instructions. It is concise and avoids unnecessary words.

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?

The description covers purpose, input methods, and output capability (postable as PR comment). With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It is sufficiently complete for a code review tool, though it could benefit from mentioning output schema existence.

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 tool description adds minimal value beyond the schema. It reiterates the either-or choice between diff and file_path, but does not provide new meaning or constraints for the parameters.

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: 'Run a multi-model code review on a diff or file.' It specifies the verb 'Run' and the resource 'multi-model code review,' distinguishing it from sibling tools like delimit_diff and delimit_scan.

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 input instructions: 'Provide either a diff string or a file path to review.' However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, nor does it exclude other scenarios, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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