Delimit Corp Dashboard

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, and the description reinforces this with 'read-only across all subsystems.' It adds valuable behavior beyond annotations: failure isolation per sub-section, gateway-only availability, and the npm-bundle fallback response shape. This is exactly the kind of contextual behavior an agent needs.

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 organized into clear labeled sections with no wasted sentences. Each section adds value: use cases, alternatives, side effects, return behavior, and deployment constraints. It is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place.

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?

Covers the complete decision surface: what the tool returns, when to use it, when not to use it, how it behaves on partial failure, where it is available, and what happens on unsupported installs. An agent has everything needed to correctly select and invoke this tool.

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 zero parameters, the schema already reflects that, and the description explicitly states 'Args: None.' There is no parameter semantic burden to carry, so a baseline of 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with a clear, specific purpose: 'One-call corp status' and a full list of included subsystems. It explicitly differentiates itself from finer-grained single-subsystem tools and names sibling rollups, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool is and is not.

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?

Contains explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, including named alternatives such as delimit_daemon_status and delimit_obs_status. This gives an agent direct, actionable routing guidance with no ambiguity.

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