Delimit Vendor News Health

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

The description states 'Side effects: read-only' and lists the files it reads, but the annotations declare readOnlyHint: false. This directly contradicts the annotation. While the description provides useful detail about what it greps/reads, the contradiction forces a score of 1 per the rubric.

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 into labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects, Args, Returns) with no filler. Each section earns its place, and the key purpose is front-loaded.

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 the annotation contradiction, the description is otherwise complete: it covers purpose, usage boundaries, side effects, arguments, and return shape ('Dict with cron_installed, last_run_ts, sensor stats...'). An agent has enough to decide whether and how to call it.

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 tool has zero parameters and the input schema is empty. The description explicitly states 'Args: None,' which is clear and sufficient. Baseline 4 applies for 0-parameter tools.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Health check for the vendor-news riff system (LED-1253).' It names concrete sibling tools and clarifies that this tool is specifically the vendor-news subsystem health check, distinguishing it from delimit_vendor_news_draft and delimit_social_daemon.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' guidance with concrete diagnostic questions ('is the cron firing? are drafts landing? what's getting rejected?') and 'When NOT to use' rules with named alternatives. This gives an agent clear routing criteria.

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