get_gates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It transparently states the tool returns a file, enumerates its contents, and notes the size (~9KB). It does not explicitly say it is read-only, but the nature of returning a markdown file makes the behavior clear and complete enough.

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, front-loaded with what the tool returns and followed by a crisp usage trigger. Every word earns its place; no filler or redundancy.

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 parameterless, read-only file retrieval tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it names the file, summarizes the content, gives a usage trigger, and even indicates size. There is nothing critical missing for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to explain parameters; it adds value by describing what the returned document contains, which is more useful than parameter details would be.

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 states a specific action and resource: 'Returns core/02-GATES.md' and details its contents (verification checklists, THE GATE, report templates). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling get_* tools, which target different files.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to load it: 'when you need to verify work before claiming completion.' It does not mention specific exclusions or directly compare to siblings, but the trigger condition is clear enough to route to this tool.

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