delimit

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'inspect or validate,' which suggests a read-only operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, what happens on validation failure, rate limits, or output format. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with governance implications.

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 brief and front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by parameter explanations. It avoids redundancy, but the parameter section could be more integrated. Overall, it's efficient with minimal waste.

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 2 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and an output schema (which reduces need to describe returns), the description provides basic purpose and param semantics. However, it lacks details on governance context, error handling, or sibling differentiation, making it adequate but incomplete for informed tool selection.

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 param details. The description adds basic semantics by explaining 'spec_files' as 'List of spec file paths' and 'policy_file' as 'Optional custom policy file path,' which clarifies purpose but lacks format, constraints, or examples. This partially compensates but doesn't fully address the coverage gap.

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 'inspect[s] or validate[s] governance policy configuration,' which provides a general purpose but lacks specificity about what 'governance policy' entails or how it differs from sibling tools like 'delimit_gov_policy' or 'delimit_gov_evaluate.' It uses verbs but doesn't clearly distinguish scope or resources from alternatives.

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 other governance-related siblings (e.g., delimit_gov_policy, delimit_gov_evaluate). The description implies it's for inspection/validation but doesn't specify contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent with minimal usage direction.

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