smoke_test_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool creates explicit proof of no regression and describes the arguments. However, it does not specify side effects (e.g., whether it stores data), idempotency, or what happens on duplicate calls. The presence of an output schema mitigates the need to describe return values, but behavioral transparency is somewhat lacking.

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?

The description is highly concise, consisting of just five lines with clear structure. It front-loads the critical trigger instruction and uses a bulleted argument list for clarity. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, 2 required) and the presence of an output schema, the description covers the essential context: usage trigger, parameter meanings, and purpose. It is mostly complete for the intended use case, though it could include notes on error handling or conflict resolution.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining each parameter: 'description' as what change is validated, 'before_state' as measurable state before, 'after_state' as after change (leave empty when creating), and 'action' as either 'create' or 'complete'. This provides significant value, though it could be more specific about format or constraints.

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 is a 'Smoke Test Gate — Before/after validation checkpoint' used for refactoring. It specifies the trigger: call before starting a refactor (create) and after finishing (complete). This provides a specific verb and resource, and hints at its role among sibling tools, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from alternatives.

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 explicitly instructs to call this tool 'EXACTLY ONCE before starting a refactor' and 'ONCE after finishing it', with the action 'create' and 'complete' respectively. This provides clear context for when to use it, but it does not mention when not to use it or alternative tools.

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