Phase Direction Here

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so the agent already knows this is a mutating, non-idempotent, non-destructive local operation. The description adds useful context about what 'running' actually means (executing pre-commit hooks, and that heavy pulls in pytest/cargo/uv lock --check), which implies cost/latency. It does not, however, cover permissions, side effects on the repo, or what a partial/failed run leaves behind.

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 body is two short paragraphs and front-loads the run/inspect purpose reasonably. But the first sentence 'Phase direction here (rm_gates)' is pure filler that restates the name, and the description never touches the multi-mode operation model that its own schema alludes to. Some waste, but not bloated.

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?

With 12 parameters, an output schema, and annotations, the structured fields carry most of the load, and the description covers the fast/heavy dimension adequately. But it is silent on the multiple operations referenced only inside parameter descriptions ('status', 'explain', 'profile', 'run', 'retest', 'audit_fail_fast', 'xdist_apply', 'phase_direction_here') with no visible mode selector in the schema, leaving the agent unable to tell how the tool's behavior is chosen.

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 the schema already documents all 12 parameters, including the fast/heavy stage mapping. The description's stage explanation largely duplicates the schema's own enum description ('fast' -> pre-commit run --hook-stage pre-commit, 'heavy' -> --hook-stage pre-push), adding no syntax or format detail beyond it. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 second sentence does state a concrete verb+resource: running and inspecting the two-tier (fast/heavy) pre-commit gate across repos. However, the opening clause 'Phase direction here (rm_gates)' is a bare restatement of the placeholder name/title and adds no meaning. It never clearly distinguishes itself from the many gate siblings (rm_gates_run, rm_gates_status, rm_gates_explain, rm_gates_profile) even though its own schema references modes like 'status'/'explain'/'profile'/'run'/'retest' that appear to belong to those siblings.

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 only usage signal is the vague claim that this is 'the single tool that can actually drive both tiers of the two-tier gate model', with no condition stated for when to pick it over rm_gates_run/rm_gates_retest/rm_gates_status. There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite guidance for a tool that executes hooks. The stage fast/heavy explanation is parameter guidance, not tool-selection guidance.

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