delimit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool 'checks' governance gates, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify what 'governance gates' are, what the check entails, whether it requires specific permissions, what happens if gates fail, or what the output contains beyond what the output schema might provide.

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 efficiently structured with a clear purpose statement followed by parameter documentation. Both sentences earn their place: the first establishes what the tool does, the second provides essential parameter context with a helpful example. No wasted words or redundancy.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers the basic purpose and parameter semantics adequately. However, as a governance-related tool with no annotations, it should provide more context about what 'governance gates' are and what the check evaluates. The presence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return values, but behavioral context remains 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 provides meaningful context for the single parameter 'plan_id' by explaining it's the plan ID with an example format ('PLAN-A1B2C3D4'). This adds value beyond the schema's basic type declaration, especially given the 0% schema description coverage. The example format is particularly helpful for correct usage.

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 action ('Check governance gates') and the target resource ('for a plan'), with the '(Pro)' qualifier providing some specificity. It distinguishes from obvious non-siblings like deployment or design tools, but doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar governance tools like 'delimit_gov_evaluate' or 'delimit_gov_verify'.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or when other tools (like 'delimit_gov_evaluate' or 'delimit_gov_verify') might be more suitable for governance-related tasks.

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