delimit

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does (scanning for accessibility issues) but omits critical behavioral traits such as whether it modifies files, requires specific permissions, has rate limits, outputs a report, or handles errors. This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to invoke it safely and effectively.

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 sized and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose and listing checks. The parameter explanations are concise and relevant, with no wasted sentences, though the structure could be slightly improved by separating checks and args 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 the tool's complexity (accessibility scanning with 2 parameters), no annotations, and an output schema present, the description is moderately complete. It covers the purpose and parameters but lacks behavioral context and usage guidelines. The output schema likely handles return values, so the description doesn't need to explain those, but it should address more operational aspects.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaningful semantics by explaining that 'project_path' is for scanning and 'standards' specifies the accessibility standard with examples (WCAG2A/WCAG2AA/WCAG2AAA), including a default. This clarifies parameter purposes beyond the bare schema, though it could provide more detail on path formats or standard differences.

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 with specific verbs ('run WCAG accessibility checks', 'scanning HTML/JSX/TSX') and resources ('common issues'), and it distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on accessibility scanning rather than other development tasks like deployment, testing, or cost analysis.

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, such as other scanning or linting tools in the sibling list (e.g., delimit_scan, delimit_lint, delimit_security_scan). It lacks context about prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to similar tools.

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