art.qa.gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose it returns a pass/fail verdict with full report, but does not mention side effects (if any), whether it mutates state, or any required permissions. However, the tool name and description suggest a non-destructive evaluation, and the description adds value by stating the output format.

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 a single sentence with no waste. It front-loads the action and the outcome. It is concise and structured well.

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 relatively simple with 2 parameters and no output schema. Given the complexity, the description is fairly complete but could mention the effect of the profile parameter or the nature of the report. However, since schema already covers parameter details, the description is adequate for a basic gate check tool.

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%, so both parameters (profile and asset_id) are already described. The description does not add beyond schema. The profile parameter has enum with default, which is already clear from schema. The description adds no additional semantics beyond what the schema provides, 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?

Description clearly states it runs a QA gate check on an asset and returns a pass/fail verdict with a full report. It uses specific verb (run) and resource (asset QA gate). While it could differentiate from siblings like art.qa.asset, art.qa.batch, or art.qa.explain_failure, the description is sufficiently specific about the outcome.

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 context (run a QA gate check) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like art.qa.asset, art.qa.batch, or art.validate_style. It does not mention exclusions or prerequisites. The appropriate context is implied but not explicitly guided.

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