Delimit Ventures

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

Annotations already carry readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds value by disclosing the underlying implementation call (ai.ledger_manager.list_ventures) and the data-provenance mechanism (auto-registration when any Delimit tool runs in a project directory). No contradiction with 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?

Well-structured with labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects, Args, Returns). Front-loaded with a one-sentence purpose, and every section contributes non-redundant information. The 'Side effects' and 'Note' lines are economical and earn their place.

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?

For a parameterless read-only list tool with full annotation coverage and an output schema, the description is complete: purpose, routing guidance, side effects, data provenance, args, and return shape are all covered. The only absent details (ordering, staleness) are negligible for a simple inventory 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?

There are zero parameters and the description explicitly states 'Args: None,' confirming the empty schema. Per the baseline for 0-param tools, no parameter documentation is needed; the description even goes beyond by outlining the return shape ('Dict with the venture list (each entry has name, path, etc.)').

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource statement: 'List all registered ventures (auto-registered project directories).' The parenthetical defines the key term, and the sibling contrast ('delimit_context_list inventories artifacts inside one venture; this lists the ventures themselves') explicitly distinguishes it from the closest sibling without requiring the agent to open either schema.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections that name the alternatives (delimit_context_list, delimit_memory_recent) and the routing condition ('before routing a ledger query or context operation'). The sibling contrast reinforces the boundary. Nothing is left to inference.

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