Satisfy Gate

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

Annotations indicate destructiveHint=true, and description adds behavioral traits: evidence stored with 5-minute TTL, structured reasoning chained in audit trail. This provides useful context beyond annotations, though could elaborate on consequences of re-satisfying a gate.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with core purpose. Every word earns its place; no redundancy. Efficient and clear.

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?

Covers purpose, TTL, audit trail, and structured reasoning role. Does not mention output or prerequisites (e.g., gate must exist), but given no output schema and tool simplicity, it is sufficiently complete.

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 100% with parameter descriptions. Description adds meaning: evidence TTL and audit trail behavior for structured reasoning, which is not in the schema. This significantly aids correct usage.

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 'Satisfy a gate condition' with verb 'satisfy' and resource 'gate condition'. It distinguishes from sibling gate tools like register_claim_gate (creates gates) and gate_stats (queries gates).

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?

Implies usage for satisfying a gate condition but provides no explicit guidance on when to use versus alternatives (e.g., register_claim_gate, require_evidence_for_claim). No when-not-to-use or prerequisites mentioned.

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