Delimit Gov Run

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

Beyond the annotations, it discloses require_premium gating with unlicensed behavior, the backend invocation, the run record side effect, routing through _with_next_steps, and explicitly notes the tool records execution rather than performing work. This is substantial behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 highly structured with labeled sections: when to use, when NOT to use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every section adds decision-relevant information with minimal redundancy. The key purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 an output schema exists, the description does not need to explain return values, yet it still mentions the orchestrator hints in the response. It covers licensing, side effects, pipeline ordering, and the limitation that no underlying work is performed. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation.

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 both repo and task_id. The narrative adds useful context such as task_id being required despite not being marked required in the schema, but it does not add much meaning beyond what the schema descriptions already convey. Baseline 3 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 first sentence states a specific verb and resource: 'Execute a previously created governance task under policy (Pro).' It clearly differentiates from siblings by naming the pipeline step and contrasts with delimit_gov_evaluate, new_task, and verify. The purpose is unambiguous even without opening the schema.

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 explicitly says when to use it (step two, after new_task, before verify), when NOT to use it (evaluate, new_task, verify), and provides a sibling contrast plus the full pipeline: new_task -> run -> verify. This gives the agent complete routing guidance.

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