delimit_substantive_content_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses side effects (read-only, pure validator, no network/writes/notifications) and details the two-stage gate logic (target-side veto and content shape checks). This covers behavioral traits comprehensively, including the rationale for the hard veto (KYC deanonymization). No contradictions with missing 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-organized: a one-line summary, then clearly labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects, two stages). Every sentence serves a purpose, and the information is front-loaded. It is concise yet thorough, avoiding unnecessary verbosity.

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 existence of an output schema, the description appropriately does not explain return values. It covers usage, behavioral side effects, validation logic, and sibling differentiation. The description provides enough context for an agent to correctly select and invoke this tool, including mandatory bypass conditions and the two-stage process.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how the parameters (body, repo, repo_description, repo_topics, proposed_action) are used in the two-stage validation logic (target veto and content shape). While the schema descriptions are clear, the description contextualizes the parameters within the validation rules (e.g., forbidden phrases, technical anchors), going beyond basic schema definitions.

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 identifies the tool as a pre-submit gate for autonomous GitHub outreach, specifying the exact verb (check) and resource (substantive content). It distinguishes from the sibling delimit_external_pr_check by stating that this guard is for the substantive-content boundary, while the sibling handles PR duplication. The purpose is explicit and actionable.

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 explicit when-to-use (last step before submitting to third-party GitHub repos under outreach_substantive, mandatory per CLAUDE.md) and when-not-to-use (internal repos, non-GitHub platforms, non-outreach submissions). It also contrasts with a sibling tool and explains that for PR submissions, both tools are called in sequence. This is exemplary guidance.

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