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 adds value by stating 'Informational only,' which clarifies this is a read-only, non-destructive operation. However, it doesn't disclose other behavioral traits such as rate limits, authentication needs, output format, or error handling, which are important for a tool with analysis functions.

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 highly concise and well-structured: a clear purpose statement followed by brief parameter explanations. Every sentence earns its place without redundancy, and it's front-loaded with the main functionality. The formatting with 'Args:' enhances readability, making it efficient for quick comprehension.

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's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, but has an output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, behavioral note ('Informational only'), and parameter meanings. Since an output schema exists, it doesn't need to explain return values, but could benefit from more context on usage scenarios or limitations to be fully comprehensive.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description compensates by explaining 'api_name: The API that changed' and 'dependency_file: Optional path to dependency manifest,' adding meaningful semantics beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't cover all aspects like expected formats or examples, leaving some gaps in understanding.

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: 'Analyze downstream impact of an API change.' It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('downstream impact of an API change'), making the intent unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'delimit_diff' or 'delimit_diagnose,' which might also involve analysis, so it doesn't reach the highest score.

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 some implied usage context by stating 'Informational only,' suggesting this tool is for analysis rather than action, and mentions an optional 'dependency_file' parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., compared to 'delimit_diff' for changes or 'delimit_diagnose' for issues), and doesn't specify prerequisites or exclusions, leaving room for uncertainty.

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