Delimit Security Deliberate

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description discloses side effects: it calls multiple models via the deliberation panel and updates ledger items with triage verdicts. It also explains the Pro prerequisite and the exact unlicensed-call error behavior, which is valuable operational context.

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 organized with clear labeled sections (When to use, When NOT to use, Sibling contrast, Side effects, Prerequisite) and no filler. Each sentence adds distinct value, from routing to side effects to failure behavior.

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 tool with no required parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers the pipeline context, safety/mutation effects, licensing constraint, and error behavior. An agent has enough to decide when to invoke it and what to expect from an unlicensed call.

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 repo, focus, and findings fully. The description does not add parameter-specific detail beyond the schema, which matches the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage.

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 phrase, 'Multi-model triage of security findings', and enumerates the classification outcomes (real risk / false positive / accepted risk / needs immediate action), so an agent knows exactly what the tool accomplishes. It also distinguishes the tool from delimit_security_ingest, delimit_security_scan, and delimit_deliberate, making it unambiguous among siblings.

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?

Explicit 'When to use' and 'When NOT to use' sections state the prerequisite pipeline step (after delimit_security_ingest) and route ingest and scan tasks to the correct siblings. The sibling contrast with delimit_deliberate further clarifies which variant to choose.

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