delimit_work_orders

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the concept of work orders but does not describe the actions (list, show, complete) or their effects (e.g., whether they create/update/delete files). The input schema covers action descriptions, but the description itself lacks behavioral detail.

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 concise with two short paragraphs, front-loading the core purpose. While sparse, it avoids unnecessary fluff. It could be slightly more structured, but overall efficient.

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 tool has four parameters with explicit actions and an output schema, the description explains the domain (work orders as markdown files) but does not cover the operational workflow (e.g., the relationship between actions and parameters). The input schema fills some gaps, but the description alone is not fully complete.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the schema already documents each parameter's purpose. The description does not add additional meaning beyond the schema, resulting in a baseline score of 3.

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 managing work orders and explains their purpose as structured task artifacts for the founder. It distinguishes them from general tasks, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like delimit_task_complete or delimit_next_task.

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 implies usage for bridging strategy and execution, mentioning that work orders are copy-pasteable markdown files for Claude Code. However, it does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, nor does it mention alternatives among the many sibling tools.

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