GATE status

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile, but the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: the mode-dependent behavior (local simulated authority graph vs. remote endpoint health request) and the semantics of both success and failure. The caveat that a healthy response does not prove permission is a non-obvious interpretive constraint an agent could not infer from annotations.

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?

Purpose and mode behavior are front-loaded, and every sentence carries operational meaning. The only weakness is mild redundancy between 'a healthy response does not prove permission' and 'if the status request fails, do not assume access is allowed' — both are useful, but they are phrased as near-parallel warnings.

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 parameters and no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining what comes back, and it does so at a high level (mode, simulated authority graph, endpoint health). It stops short of describing the response structure, but for a status probe the interpretive guidance it supplies is the more valuable content.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the baseline applies. The description correctly adds no parameter talk, leaving the no-argument contract intact.

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 opening sentence gives a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('configured GATE verifier mode and operational status'), which is unambiguous. It also explicitly separates itself from gate_verify, so an agent can route correctly without opening either schema.

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?

It names the intended contexts (setup checks, troubleshooting) and an explicit exclusion ('not to authorize an action'). It then routes the alternative use case to gate_verify 'at the trusted effect boundary', which is exactly the when/when-not/alternative structure a 5 requires.

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