Delimit Obs Status

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

The description claims 'read-only on the observability backend' and states 'No write, no ledger entry, no notification,' but the annotations set readOnlyHint=false, which signals the tool may modify state. This is a direct annotation contradiction. The description otherwise provides rich behavioral detail about license gating, backend invocation, response wrapping, and error handling, but the contradiction is disqualifying.

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 sections: primary purpose, when to use, when not to use, sibling contrast, side effects, args, and returns. Each section earns its place and provides operational guidance without meaningless filler. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the formatting aids agent scanning.

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?

For a zero-parameter status-rollup tool, the description covers trigger conditions, exclusions, licensing behavior, backend failure behavior, and the exact return shape including keys and license-gate payloads. With an output schema present and rich sibling-tool context, an agent has all necessary information to select and invoke 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?

The tool has zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there is nothing for the description to compensate for. The 'Args: None' statement is clear and the description adds useful context that parameter choices are not involved and that behavior is driven by license state rather than arguments.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a high-level health rollup from the observability layer (Pro).' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by contrasting synthesized rollups against raw numeric series from delimit_obs_metrics, and by contrasting the observability layer with the governance layer of delimit_gov_health.

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?

Provides explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections, naming alternative tools such as delimit_obs_metrics, delimit_obs_logs, and delimit_obs_alerts. It also specifies orchestrator flow context, deploy-gate caveats, and required pairing with delimit_security_audit and delimit_test_smoke.

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