get_verification_gates

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, but for a zero-parameter static content retrieval the risk surface is minimal. The verb "Retrieve" implies a read-only, side-effect-free fetch, and the description discloses both the returned content (five gates plus the prohibited-marker checklist) and the required workflow behavior. It adds no auth, rate-limit, or pagination notes, but none are plausibly needed here.

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?

Two sentences, no filler: the first front-loads what is retrieved and enumerates the gates, the second states the imperative usage. Every clause earns its place.

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?

For a zero-parameter, annotation-free retrieval tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent needs: the resource identity, the exact contents (five named gates plus the checklist), and when to invoke it. Nothing actionable is missing.

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 for the description to disambiguate at the argument level; the baseline for a no-param tool is 4. The description adds no spurious parameter talk, which is correct.

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 gives a specific verb (Retrieve) and resource (five pre-emission verification gates) and even enumerates the gate names, so the agent knows exactly what payload to expect. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from similarly-named sibling retrievers like get_constitution or get_knowledge_area, which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

"Run these gates before delivering any code output" states a clear triggering condition and lifecycle placement, which is genuinely useful routing guidance. It stops short of naming alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to fetch gates), so it is a 4 rather than a 5.

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