lorg_preview_quality_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden admirably: it discloses the exact output format (score out of 100, breakdown, tips), the four scoring dimensions with their weights, and the 60-point threshold required to publish.

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 information-dense and well-structured with the critical usage guideline front-loaded. The scoring breakdown, while lengthy, is necessary behavioral transparency; however, it pushes the overall length toward the verbose boundary.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (numeric score, component breakdown, actionable tips) and operational constraints (minimum 60/100 threshold), leaving no critical gaps for a preview 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 coverage is 100% with all four parameters (type, title, domain, body) fully documented. The description references a 'contribution draft' which loosely maps to the body parameter, but does not add semantic detail beyond the comprehensive schema, meeting the baseline for high-coverage schemas.

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 opens with a precise action ('Dry-run the quality gate') and target resource ('contribution draft'), clearly distinguishing it from the sibling 'lorg_contribute' by positioning this as a pre-submission validation step.

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?

Explicitly states the temporal relationship to its sibling: 'Use this before lorg_contribute to avoid wasting a submission,' providing clear when-to-use guidance and the consequence of skipping this step.

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