list_gates

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

With zero annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does disclose the single most important behavioral trait — that this tool has no effect on the engine state (read-only in effect), which is significant given the mutation-heavy sibling set. It does not go further (e.g., scope of repo_path, failure behavior), but the key side-effect signal is present.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler. The first identifies the resource and the non-executing nature; the second reinforces the no-side-effects constraint, which is load-bearing given the sibling mutations. Every word earns its place and the key constraint 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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no description, and the no-engine-touch disclosure covers risk context. The main completeness gap is the undefined repo_path parameter, which an agent needs to resolve before calling. For a list-style tool this is otherwise fairly complete, but the undocumented parameter keeps it from being fully self-sufficient.

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 0% — the only parameter, repo_path, has just a title 'Repo Path' with no schema description. The tool description adds nothing about the parameter either: it never explains what repo_path should be (absolute path, existing repo on disk, branch/commit reference). For a single-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the description should compensate but does not.

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?

Clear verb 'List' and specific resource 'the gates a release of this repository would run.' The phrase 'would run' signals this is prospective inspection, not triggering a release. The closing 'Does not touch the engine' works with sibling names (engine_status, deploy_process, start_release) to differentiate it from engine-affecting tools, though no sibling is named explicitly.

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?

'Does not touch the engine' gives an implicit when-not: use this when you only want to inspect gates without side effects, rather than for the mutation siblings (start_release, deploy_process, approve_gate). But no explicit alternative is named and no clear 'use X instead when...' guidance is given. The context is implied rather than stated.

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