delimit_sense

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the file path and separation from the ledger, but lacks details on side effects (e.g., what happens on promote or freeze) and does not mention permissions or rate limits. This is adequate but not thorough.

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 extremely concise: three short sentences that front-load the purpose and include an important detail (physical separation). Every sentence adds value, and there is no fluff.

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 tool has 8 parameters and no annotations, yet the description only covers high-level actions and storage. It omits details on 'freeze' and 'show' actions, and despite having an output schema, it does not provide enough behavioral context for a complex tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds minimal meaning beyond the schema—only mentions actions generally. It does not elaborate on parameters like since_days or limit, so no extra value is provided.

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: 'Review and manage the signal corpus' and lists specific actions like inspect, cluster, and promote. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing that signals are physically separated from the ledger and that promotion moves signals to ledger items.

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 clear context for when to use the tool—for signal corpus management—but does not explicitly mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools. Since it offers a clear use case without exclusions, it earns a 4.

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