Delimit External Pr Check

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond that: it is fail-closed, makes a network call, shells out to gh CLI via a named backend, and defines the exact duplicate condition (open PR or PR merged in last 30 days). This is far richer than the annotations alone.

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 well-structured with clear labels, front-loaded with the key instruction, and every sentence earns its place. It is detailed but not bloated, and the sibling contrast is tight.

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 annotations and output schema, the description covers the trigger conditions, exclusions, side effects, backend implementation, fail-closed behavior, and the verdict threshold. An agent has enough context to decide to call this tool and to interpret its outcome correctly.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters with defaults and examples. The description does not add much parameter-specific meaning, though it gives useful context about repo ownership and the duplicate verdict condition.

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 a specific verb and resource: a pre-PR duplicate guard for external repos. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from delimit_gov_evaluate, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('as the first step before drafting any PR against a repo you don't own'), explicit when-not-to-use guidance (internal repos or non-PR actions), and names the alternative tool to use instead (delimit_gov_evaluate).

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