Delimit Sensor Github Issue

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description reinforces this by stating 'read-only network call via gh CLI.' It adds valuable context beyond the annotations: the regex repo-format validation (defense-in-depth) and the confused-deputy guard (_check_repo_allowlist) that can block the call before fetching. This is genuinely useful failure-mode disclosure.

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?

Compact and efficiently organized: one-line purpose, then labeled sections for when-to-use, when-not-to-use, sibling contrast, and side effects. Every sentence earns its place and the most decision-critical information (purpose, exclusions) 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?

Complete for a monitored-read tool. An output schema exists to document return values, annotations cover the safety profile, and the description covers usage boundaries, side effects, validation behavior, and the allowlist guard. Nothing an agent needs to call or route this tool correctly is missing.

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 baseline is 3. The description's 'since the last sensor tick' framing gives conceptual meaning to since_comment_id (incremental monitoring), but it does not add concrete parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already documents for repo, issue_number, or since_comment_id. The schema carries the weight here, which is acceptable.

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+resource+scope construction: 'Check a GitHub issue for new comments since the last sensor tick.' It names both alternatives it is not (delimit_github_scan for repo-wide scans, delimit_resource_get for one-shot fetch), making sibling differentiation explicit and immediate.

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 with concrete alternative tool names and the conditions that select them. Also adds a sibling contrast paragraph specifically distinguishing this tool from delimit_github_scan. No inference is required by the agent.

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