project_commit_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does so well: it states the operation is read-only, explains that the gate is opt-in, and clarifies that absence of configuration means no enforcement. It also warns that a local hook is not a security boundary, which is valuable context beyond a simple status check. It does not describe the return format or possible outcomes, but the core behavioral traits are disclosed.

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 two short sentences with no fluff. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds high-value interpretive and security guidance that earns its place.

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?

The tool is simple, but there is no output schema and no annotation coverage, so the description must explain both the input expectation and the return value. It explains the gate's semantics well but omits what 'check' returns and what project_root semantically requires, leaving an agent partially underspecified.

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 has one required parameter, project_root, with 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate by explaining what value should be passed. The description does not mention project_root at all, leaving the agent to infer its meaning from the name alone. No additional semantic value is added beyond the schema.

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 clearly identifies a specific action ('check') and a specific resource ('opt-in staged-tree gate'), and the 'read-only' qualifier differentiates it from mutation-style siblings like project_commit_ack and project_change. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling tool, so it stops short of full differentiation.

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 implies this is the tool to use when you need to determine whether the opt-in staged-tree gate is enabled, and it gives useful interpretive context about what a missing gate means. It does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives or when not to use it, so the guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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