evaluate_qa_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it doesn't say whether this is a read-only check or mutates gate state, whether it blocks a handoff or release decision, what permissions are needed, or how the 'current revision' is resolved. For a gate-evaluation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a substantial gap.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is efficient, though its brevity reflects under-specification rather than disciplined concision.

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 presence of an output schema relieves the description of explaining return values, but everything else is missing: parameter meaning, read-vs-write nature, gate outcome semantics, and how it relates to the evidence and release-decision siblings. Given two required undocumented parameters and no annotations, this is inadequate.

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% for both required parameters. The description never mentions work_item_id and gives no explanation of required_kinds — which is the central concept of the tool (which evidence kinds count toward the gate). At most it vaguely implies the existence of evidence kinds, adding nearly nothing over the bare 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 names a specific verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('QA gate') and states the condition being checked (all passing QA evidence on the current revision). However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like record_evidence or record_release_decision, and 'current revision' is never defined even though no revision parameter exists.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., evidence must be recorded first), and no reference to alternative tools such as record_evidence or record_release_decision. The agent must infer the workflow context entirely from the name.

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