delimit

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it 'checks' status, implying a read-only operation. It doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, whether it's safe to run frequently, or what 'Pro' entails (e.g., premium feature). This leaves gaps for a tool that likely interacts with system health.

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 a single, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, though it could be more structured by elaborating on 'Pro' or output. For a zero-parameter tool, this conciseness is mostly adequate.

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 0 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and an output schema (which handles return values), the description is minimally complete. However, for a health-check tool with no annotations, it should ideally explain what 'health' includes or what 'Pro' means to provide better context. It's adequate but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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 tool has 0 parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents inputs. The description doesn't need to add parameter details, but it could mention if any implicit inputs are required (e.g., authentication). Since there are no parameters, a baseline of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the schema.

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 'Check vault health status (Pro)' states the action ('Check') and resource ('vault health status'), but it's vague about what 'health status' entails or what 'Pro' means. It distinguishes from siblings like 'delimit_vault_search' or 'delimit_vault_snapshot' by focusing on health, but lacks specificity on scope or output.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, timing, or comparisons to other tools like 'delimit_gov_health' or 'delimit_obs_status' that might also check health aspects. The description implies a specific context ('Pro') but doesn't explain it.

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