auto_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description fully carries the burden. It discloses the return format '{ proceed: true/false, reason: "..." }', which is beyond simple 'returns a decision', and implies no side effects. This is sufficient for an AI agent to understand behavior.

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 consists of two concise sentences that front-load the purpose with a question. Every sentence provides essential information without waste.

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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description explains what it does, what input it accepts, and what output it returns. It is complete and leaves no gaps for the agent.

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%, and the description merely repeats the accepted formats from the schema ('owner/repo, npm package, Smithery URL, etc.'). No additional meaning is added, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'Should I install this? Returns a simple go/no-go decision with reasoning.' It uses a specific verb ('decide') and resource ('install decision'), and differentiates from sibling tools like 'check_trust_score' by focusing on a yes/no install verdict.

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 explicitly states input formats ('owner/repo, npm package, Smithery URL, etc.'), making it clear when to use the tool. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternatives like 'batch_check' for multiple items.

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