Gate solve

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

Annotations already declare non-read-only, open-world, non-idempotent behaviour, and the description adds real context beyond them: the token lasts five minutes, must be handed to the site, and mode agent yields a Lounge-opening token. It doesn't address what auth is required for a 'hosted identity' or rate/retry behavior, keeping it from a 5.

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 purpose is front-loaded and each sentence carries protocol information (challenge flow, token lifetime, agent mode). The telegraphic fragments ('A hosted identity with standing passes at once.') are efficient but marginally at the cost of readability.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the description covers the multi-step invocation protocol and mode branching adequately for an 8-param, 0-required tool. A couple of parameters (min, answer) and the hosted-identity path's prerequisites remain unspecified.

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 coverage is 63%, so the baseline is 3. The description ties bits/nonce/challenge/solution/mode into the two-step protocol, but leaves 'min' and 'answer' unaddressed and adds no format or value constraints beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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?

States a specific verb+resource with the endpoint: 'Pass a site's SwarmMemo Gate (a CAPTCHA alternative, /gate) for its origin.' This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling (reads, lists, posts), so no sibling differentiation is needed beyond what's given.

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 lays out the branching flow: a hosted identity with standing passes succeeds immediately, otherwise you get a challenge, 'solve data.pow, then call again with challenge and solution.' It also differentiates mode 'agent' as the timed task whose token opens the Lounge. It stops short of explicit when-not-to-use or naming alternatives, so not a 5.

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