skills.reviewGate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely non-obvious trait: the blocked=true semantics when a skill is unapproved. That is useful output/exit behavior an agent cannot infer from the schema. But it omits any statement of side effects, permissions, read-only nature, or what happens on the approved path.

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?

It is a single tight sentence with the gating behavior front-loaded and no filler. The brevity is efficient, though it borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented required parameter, the definition is missing too much: what 'path' points at, what 'approved' means in this system, and what the tool returns beyond blocked=true. For a gating tool in a large review/pipeline toolset, this is inadequate.

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?

The single required parameter 'path' has 0% schema description coverage, so the description needs to compensate and does not. It never says whether path refers to a skill directory, a manifest file, or a repository root, leaving the one input ambiguous.

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 identifies a "CI gate" that emits blocked=true when a skill is not approved, so the resource and gating intent come through. However, it reads as a cryptic fragment rather than a clear verb+resource statement, and it never distinguishes this gate from review-adjacent siblings like skills.reviewStatus or skills.reviewApprove. An agent can guess the purpose but not confidently separate it from neighbors.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance. The mention of 'CI gate' implies automated pipeline usage, but nothing states when an agent should call this versus skills.reviewStatus or skills.flightCheck.

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