sw_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains that the tool translates credibility checks into gate language, hard failures become blocking items, and users must fix them before proceeding. However, it does not disclose side effects, whether it is read-only, or what output format is expected, leaving gaps.

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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. It uses clear formatting to separate the stage explanation and the note about sibling tools. No redundant sentences, though the metaphoric '门禁语言' adds slight ambiguity.

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 a simple 2-parameter tool with an output schema, the description provides adequate context: when to use, what it does, and which sibling handles other gates. It doesn't explain prerequisites or dataset_id details, but for a gate tool, this is reasonably complete.

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 clarifies the 'stage' parameter by linking it to Gate 1, but the required 'dataset_id' parameter is not explained at all—its type, source, or relationship to the gate. The description only partially compensates for the missing schema details.

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 this is a review gate ('评审门') that blocks unsupported conclusions, with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly identifies stage='channel' as Gate 1 and distinguishes Gates 2/3 as belonging to sw_compare_arms, differentiating it from siblings.

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 provides explicit usage timing: '生成之后、做实验之前跑' (run after generation, before experiments). It also states that Gates 2/3 are in sw_compare_arms, giving a clear alternative and when-not-to-use for this tool.

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