Run

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description usefully adds that the fast stage involves formatters/linters with no network/tests while heavy includes pytest/cargo/uv lock. It does not disclose what happens on hook failure, whether files may be modified by formatters, or any timeout/permission behavior, so it adds moderate rather than rich context.

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 core purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, and the stage explanation follows efficiently with low redundancy. The leading 'Run (rm_gates).' restates the tool name/title and is slightly wasteful, but overall it is appropriately sized.

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 optional parameters, an output schema, and multiple behavioral modes referenced in the schema (status, explain, profile, retest, xdist_apply, audit_fail_fast), the description covers only the run/stage dimension. It never explains how those modes are selected or what each returns, leaving a meaningful gap for such a broad tool.

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 fully documents all 12 parameters, and the baseline is 3. The description corroborates the meaning of the stage parameter (fast vs heavy hook stages) but adds no format, default, or interaction detail beyond what the schema already states.

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 and resource: it runs and inspects the two-tier (fast/heavy) pre-commit gate across repos, and it frames itself as the one tool that can drive both tiers via pre-commit run --hook-stage. This distinguishes it somewhat from inspection-only siblings like rm_gates_explain or rm_gates_profile, but the framing 'Run and inspect' is broad for a tool that the schema shows handling many modes (status, explain, profile, retest, xdist_apply).

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 explains what each stage means (fast = formatters/linters, no network/tests; heavy = pytest, cargo, uv lock --check), which implies when to pick a tier. However, it never states when to use this tool versus the many gate siblings (rm_gates_explain, rm_gates_profile, rm_gates_status, rm_gates_retest), nor any prerequisites or exclusions. Usage is inferred rather than directed.

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