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 of behavioral disclosure. The description only states what the tool does ('Check governance system health') without revealing any behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only or has side effects, what permissions are required, what the output format looks like, or any rate limits. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and another documenting the parameter. It's front-loaded with the main purpose first. There's minimal waste, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating the parameter documentation more clearly).

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 that there's an output schema (which means the description doesn't need to explain return values), 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, and no annotations, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics, but lacks behavioral transparency and usage guidelines. For a tool with no annotations and simple parameters, it's passable but incomplete.

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 description includes an 'Args' section that documents the 'repo' parameter as 'Repository path to check.' This adds meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage and only shows the parameter name and type. However, with only 1 parameter total, the baseline would be 4 if no param info was provided; since some info is given, it's adequate but not exceptional.

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 the tool's purpose as 'Check governance system health' which is clear but somewhat vague. It specifies the verb 'check' and the resource 'governance system health', but doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'delimit_gov_evaluate', 'delimit_gov_status', or 'delimit_gov_verify' that might have overlapping functions. The purpose is understandable but lacks specificity about what 'health' entails.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With multiple sibling tools related to governance (e.g., delimit_gov_evaluate, delimit_gov_status, delimit_gov_verify), there's no indication of what makes this tool distinct or when it should be preferred. The only contextual clue is the parameter 'repo', but this doesn't help differentiate usage scenarios.

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