Delimit Outreach Loop Tick

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

The description discloses meaningful side effects beyond the annotations: reads ledger and network state, writes new intel-class LEDs, dispatches new substantive tasks, and honors DELIMIT_GITHUB_OUTREACH_DISABLED and ~/.delimit/outreach_pause as kill switches. Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so this behavioral detail is valuable and consistent.

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: one-line summary, when-to-use, when-not-to-use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence carries distinct information, and the core purpose is front-loaded.

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 complex tool with side effects and scheduling context, this description is complete. It covers invocation context, exclusions, sibling differentiation, side effects, and kill switches. The presence of an output schema means return-value details are not required in the description.

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 input schema already provides 100% parameter documentation with descriptions for venture, max_monitor, and max_dispatch. The description adds context about per-tick caps being intentional and the pattern of multiple ticks, but it does not add much parameter-specific meaning beyond what the schema already supplies.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Run one tick of the autonomous github-outreach loop.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly noting it is github-only, orchestrates over every open outreach LED, and uses the substantive-outreach path, unlike delimit_social_target and delimit_sensor_github_issue.

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 states exactly when to use it (external scheduler, loop_daemon, or ad-hoc manual cycle) and when not to use it (backfill for thousands of stale items), even explaining the right pattern: multiple ticks at the scheduler interval. It names specific sibling alternatives and how they differ.

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