Delimit Github Scan

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

The description discloses side effects ('read-only network') and, importantly, the mandatory chaining behavior: high-score findings must be auto-ledgered via delimit_ledger_add and pain threads notified via delimit_notify. It even warns 'Never just return findings and stop.' This goes well beyond the sparse annotations and gives the agent critical operational context. While readOnlyHint is false in annotations, the description's 'read-only network' refers to network side effects, and the chain rule clarifies downstream mutations happen via separate tools, so there is no direct contradiction.

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 longer than average but well-structured with clear headers and front-loaded purpose. Every section earns its place: cadence usage, sibling contrast, side effects, and chaining rule. Minor redundancy exists in the chain rule section ('Never just return findings and stop' restates the earlier rule), but overall it remains efficient and scannable.

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 only 2 parameters with 100% schema coverage, an existing output schema, and a detailed description covering cadences, sibling distinctions, side effects, and mandatory downstream actions, nothing essential is missing. An agent has enough information to select, invoke, and follow up on this tool 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds real semantic value beyond the schema by explaining each cadence option: 'pulse (own repo health), hunter (engagement signals, hourly), deep (full ecosystem, daily).' It does not restate limit, but the schema already documents the default and max, so the description does not need to.

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 starts with a specific verb and resource: 'Scan GitHub for adoption leads, competitive intel, repo health (Pro).' It clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes itself from siblings: 'delimit_sensor_github_issue is single-issue; delimit_tracker_sync ingests issues to ledger; this is the broad GitHub corpus scanner.' An agent can immediately tell this apart from nearby tools.

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 by cadence: 'pulse (own repo health), hunter (engagement signals, hourly), deep (full ecosystem, daily).' It also provides a direct when-NOT-to-use section with named alternatives: 'use delimit_sensor_github_issue or delimit_tracker_sync.' This leaves no ambiguity about tool selection.

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