Quality Gate Status

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, which are consistent with the description's claim of evaluation. The description adds value by detailing the return structure (evidence packet, blockers, warnings, next actions, conservative conclusion), going beyond annotation metadata.

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 for purpose and parameter explanation, one sentence for return. No fluff, front-loaded with the core action. Every sentence contributes essential information.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (5 parameters, conditional behavior, output schema), the description covers the main use cases and return structure. It lacks error conditions or edge cases, but annotations and output schema fill some gaps. Overall, it is fairly complete for an evaluation 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%, but the description adds significant meaning: e.g., pullNumber is preferred and evaluates more aspects (CI, reviews, policy, labels, mergeability), while ref evaluates CI only. It also explains blockingLabels default and customization. This is a valuable addition beyond the schema's terse descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool evaluates merge-gate evidence for PRs or CI evidence for git refs. It distinguishes between pullNumber (full evaluation) and ref (CI only), and the verb 'evaluate' combined with 'merge-gate evidence' is specific and resource-oriented. This distinct purpose sets it apart from sibling tools like branch_protection_status or release_readiness_check.

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 provides clear context for when to use pullNumber vs ref, and explains that blockingLabels can be customized. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or alternatives, but the guidance is sufficient for typical scenarios. The sibling list implies alternatives, but no direct comparisons are made.

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