forge_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must fully disclose behavior. It indicates the tool runs a check and returns results, but does not mention side effects, authentication requirements, or whether it modifies state. The description implies a read-only operation but does not confirm safety.

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 concise, with two sentences front-loading the core purpose. Every word adds value, and there is no extraneous information.

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 description covers what the tool does and what it returns (status, score, grade, violations), which is adequate given moderate complexity. However, it lacks details on error conditions, required permissions, or output format, and no output schema is provided to fill the gap.

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 schema already provides meaningful descriptions for each parameter (e.g., threshold overrides config, phase lists allowed values). The description adds 'Configurable threshold and governance phase' but does not provide additional semantic enrichment beyond restating the 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 clearly states the tool runs a quality gate check on a project and specifies the return values (pass/fail, score, grade, blocking violations). It is specific about the resource ('project') and action, and while it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like forge_assess, the function is distinct enough.

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?

No explicit guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives like forge_assess or forge_scan. The description mentions configurability (threshold, phase) but does not state when it is appropriate to invoke or when to avoid it.

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