delimit_security_audit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses auto-chaining behavior: evidence collection on all findings, plus governance task and notification on critical findings. It also lists what is scanned and optional tools. This provides substantial transparency, though details on governance task creation could be clearer.

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: first sentence summarizes purpose, second describes auto-chaining, third lists scan categories, and final optional setup. Every sentence adds value, no fluff, and it is front-loaded with the core action.

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 single parameter and existence of an output schema (not shown), the description covers tool purpose, behavior, and optional configurations. It could be more complete if it explicitly stated when to use this vs other security tools, but it is largely sufficient for effective use.

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 input schema has one parameter 'target' with full description coverage (100%), so baseline is 3. The description does not add additional semantic meaning for the parameter beyond what the schema already provides ('Repository or file path to audit.'). It does contextualize the parameter within the broader audit scope, but no extra detail.

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 audits security including dependency vulnerabilities, anti-patterns, and secret detection. It lists specific scan categories, distinguishing it from generic audit tools like 'delimit_audit' or 'delimit_scan' by its focused security scope and auto-chaining behavior.

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 implies this is for comprehensive security auditing, mentioning auto-chaining with evidence collection and governance tasks. However, it does not explicitly compare with sibling tools like 'delimit_security_scan', nor state when not to use it. It does provide context for optional enhancements (SNYK_TOKEN, Trivy), which helps usage decisions.

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