Render Smell Gate Report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description adds limited behavioral context. It does not disclose edge cases, such as behavior when multiple inputs are provided or omitted, nor does it mention any authentication or rate limits. The description adds minimal value beyond the annotations.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the key purpose and output format. It is concise and avoids verbosity, though it could add more detail without becoming excessively long.

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 no output schema and four optional parameters, the description should explain what the generated Markdown report contains or how inputs affect the output. It does not, leaving gaps in how to invoke the tool effectively. The description is incomplete for a tool with this complexity.

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% (no parameter descriptions). The description hints at 'candidate or review object' but does not explain the four parameters (candidate_text, review, evidence, context). It fails to clarify their types, relationships, or how they map to the output, leaving the agent with insufficient semantic information.

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 action ('Render a Markdown smell gate report') and source ('from a candidate or review object'), specifying the output format. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like evaluate_control_candidate or validate_smell_catalog, which might have overlapping purposes.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions for use or exclusion. The usage is implied (when you have a candidate or review object), but no explicit directions are given.

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