delimit_work_orders

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It mentions work orders are 'copy-pasteable markdown files' for the founder, but it does not clarify side effects (e.g., does list or complete modify state?), required permissions, or any destructive potential. The actions are only implied by the schema.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with purpose. No fluff. Every sentence adds value: first defines the tool, second explains its role, third describes output format. Appropriately sized for this simple tool.

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 output schema exists, return values need not be explained. The description provides enough context for the agent to understand work orders as markdown artifacts for Claude Code. However, it lacks usage context compared to other task management tools and does not mention that actions are limited to list/show/complete, which is partially compensated by schema.

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 no additional meaning beyond the schema—it does not explain the action values, note semantics, or provide examples. The schema already describes each parameter adequately.

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 states 'Manage work orders' and explains what work orders are (structured task artifacts, markdown files for Claude Code). This clearly identifies the resource and action. However, it does not explicitly list the supported operations (list, show, complete) which are only in the schema, slightly reducing clarity for distinguishing from siblings like delimit_task_complete.

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?

There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description explains the concept of work orders but does not compare to sibling tools (e.g., delimit_task_complete, delimit_handoff_create) or state scenarios where this tool is preferred or not suitable.

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