delimit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'human-readable explanation' and lists templates, but doesn't disclose key behavioral traits: whether it's read-only or mutative, what permissions or inputs are needed beyond the schema, how it handles errors, or the output format (though an output schema exists). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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-structured and concise: it starts with the core purpose, lists templates upfront, and then details parameters in a clear bullet-like format. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, but an output schema exists), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, templates, and parameter semantics adequately. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those. However, it could improve by adding more behavioral context or usage scenarios.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful context by listing all 6 parameters with brief explanations (e.g., 'Path to the old OpenAPI spec file' for 'old_spec'), noting defaults for 'template', and clarifying purposes like 'API/service name for context.' This goes beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on parameter interactions or constraints.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Generate a human-readable explanation of API changes.' It specifies the verb ('generate'), resource ('explanation'), and domain ('API changes'), making it easy to understand. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delimit_diff' or 'delimit_docs_generate', which might also relate to API changes or documentation.

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 by listing 7 templates (e.g., developer, team_lead) and noting that 'template' has a default of 'developer', suggesting it's for different audiences or contexts. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., 'delimit_diff' for raw differences), prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving some ambiguity.

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