delimit_security_audit

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses side effects: it always writes an evidence bundle, and on critical findings creates a governance task and sends a notification. It also explains test directory skipping behavior with rationale (LED-1278) and mentions optional env vars (SNYK_TOKEN, Trivy) for enhanced scanning. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured with clear sections (overview, usage, sibling contrast, parameter details, side effects). It is front-loaded with the main purpose. However, it is slightly verbose in places, repeating 'auto-chains evidence...governance task...notification' but overall efficient for the information conveyed.

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?

Despite complexity (multiple scans, side effects, env vars), the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use/not use, parameter details, behavioral side effects, and optional enhancements. An output schema exists (no need to describe return values), so all relevant context for agent decision-making is present.

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 both parameters have descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the rationale for include_tests (LED-1278, false positive reduction) and when to set it to true. For target, it restates the default but adds context ('cwd'). This exceeds baseline 3 by providing meaningful extra context.

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: audit security and auto-chain evidence + governance on critical findings. It specifies the combination of scans (dependency vulnerability, hardcoded-secret, dangerous-pattern, .env in git) and automatic side effects. It also differentiates from sibling tools like delimit_security_scan, delimit_security_ingest, and delimit_security_deliberate.

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 includes explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, providing clear guidance on appropriate contexts (deploy gate/pre-release) and explicit alternatives for other scenarios (use delimit_security_scan, delimit_security_ingest, or delimit_security_deliberate).

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