project_quality_gate

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the scope of checks (schematic, PCB, DFM, parity) but doesn't disclose operational details like return format or side effects. With annotations, this is adequate but not rich.

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 concise sentence that effectively communicates the tool's purpose and scope without any wasted words. It is front-loaded with the action and resource.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return details are covered. However, the lack of parameter semantics and any context about how to invoke it (e.g., what a 'tier' could be) makes it incomplete for an agent to call it optimally. It's adequate for a basic understanding but not fully 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?

The schema has two parameters (tier, manufacturer) with 0% description coverage. The description does not mention them at all, leaving the agent with no guidance on valid values or their purpose. This is a critical gap for a tool where manufacturer likely affects DFM checks.

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 it runs the full project quality gate across schematic, PCB, DFM, and parity checks. This specific verb and resource scope distinguishes it from sibling tools like schematic_quality_gate and pcb_quality_gate.

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 phrase 'full project quality gate' and the explicit list of domains indicate when to use this tool: when a comprehensive multi-domain check is needed. It doesn't explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is clear enough for an agent to select it appropriately.

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