Run DecisionGATE on a proposal

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, leaving the description to explain behavior. It adds that there are five sequential gates and automatic invocation within fraggate_call, but it never says what the gates do, whether the proposal is modified, or what happens on failure.

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 short and front-loads the main function, but 'Freedom without clarity is chaos' is philosophical filler that does not help an agent invoke the tool. The useful information is concise but mixed with non-functional text.

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?

With six optional parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is too sparse. It omits return behavior, gate semantics, parameter requirements, and side effects, leaving an agent without enough context to call the tool confidently.

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% and the description does not mention any of the six parameters: values, evidence, statement, impact_neg, impact_pos, and accountable. The word 'proposal' gives loose context, but no parameter is explained or mapped to the tool's behavior.

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 that the tool runs DecisionGATE as 'five sequential gates on a proposal' and notes it also runs inside fraggate_call, giving a clear action and resource. It doesn't fully differentiate from sibling gate tools, but the core function is identifiable.

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 usage by noting DecisionGATE 'runs automatically inside fraggate_call before exec,' which hints that direct invocation is for standalone gating. However, it provides no explicit when-to-use guidance or exclusions relative to siblings like fraggate_verify or fraggate_list.

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