Retrieve the scorer, thresholds, and model questions this decision gate uses to explain how proposed tool calls are evaluated.
Which scorer and thresholds this gate uses, and the questions it asks the model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds what information is surfaced (scorer, thresholds, questions posed to the model), which is useful context, but does not mention cost, caching, auth, or error behavior. Adding that it reveals the internal prompt questions is a genuine disclosure beyond the schema.
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 short clause with no waste, but because it is a sentence fragment rather than a front-loaded verb statement, the reader has to reconstruct the action. Terse at the cost of clarity.
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 an output schema present, return values need not be spelled out, and there are no parameters to explain. However, the description never defines 'gate' or situates the tool relative to score_tool_call, leaving a conceptual gap for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline applies. Schema coverage is reported at 100% for an empty object.
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 fragment names the returned content (scorer, thresholds, questions) but has no verb and no stated resource type beyond 'this gate', so the agent must infer that it is a read/info lookup. It gives no differentiation from the sibling score_tool_call, which is the most likely confusion point given both concern scoring.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus score_tool_call, no prerequisites, no mention of what a gate is or where a gate identifier comes from. The read-only nature is only visible via annotations, not the text.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.