delimit_security_ingest

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. Discloses that it normalizes, tracks in ledger, and enables deploy gating, but does not specify whether it is read-only or mutates state, or mention permissions/rate limits. Missing some behavioral context.

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?

Two paragraphs, front-loaded with purpose and supported tools. No redundant information, but some phrasing like 'this is the orchestrator model' could be integrated more tightly.

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 4 parameters and no annotations, description covers purpose, input format, and core behavior. Output schema exists, so return values are covered. Lacks mention of error handling, async behavior, or prerequisites beyond 'Pro' tag.

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 baseline is 3. Description lists supported tools, but schema parameter descriptions already cover that. No additional parameter semantics beyond schema.

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?

Clearly states 'Ingest security scan results from external tools' and lists supported scanners. Explicitly distinguishes from other security tools as the orchestrator that adds intelligence on top of existing results.

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?

Describes when to use: when you have scan results from specific tools and need normalization and gating. Implicitly separates from sibling scanning tools but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide alternatives.

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