schematic_quality_gate

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, so the description need not repeat safety. However, it adds no behavioral detail beyond the purpose—no mention of what checks are performed, what output is returned, or what happens if the schematic is not clean. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 2 is appropriate for lack of added context.

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 states the tool's purpose without filler. It is well-structured and immediately comprehensible.

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 there is an output schema and no parameters, the main gap is explaining what 'clean enough' means and how the result should be interpreted. This is a simple tool, but the description leaves room for ambiguity about the criteria and outcome, making it minimally adequate.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the description has no parameter semantics to convey. The schema coverage is 100% (empty), and the description is not expected to detail parameters. Baseline 4 applies.

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 uses a clear verb ('Evaluate') and resource ('schematic') with the goal of determining whether it is 'clean enough to proceed.' It is distinguishable from simpler analysis tools but could be more specific about what 'clean' means compared to sibling gates like schematic_connectivity_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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives such as schematic_connectivity_gate or other quality gates. The phrase 'enough to proceed' implies a checkpoint use case, but no exclusions or alternative recommendations are given.

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