get_global_gotchas

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and explains that auto-promotion is off and entries come from explicit curation, giving useful context about data provenance and governance. This is strong but not exhaustive; it does not discuss error cases or filtering behavior beyond what the schema already provides.

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 core purpose, followed by a single relevant governance note. Every sentence contributes meaning, and there is no redundant or filler content.

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?

For a simple read-only tool with an output schema and one optional parameter, the description is largely complete. It clarifies the data source, read-only nature, and curation governance. A small gap remains in explicitly guiding an agent on when to prefer this tool over sibling getters, but the core invocation context is sufficient.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage for the single optional 'library' parameter, including that it filters by substring. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already documents, so the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read cross-project gotchas from the shared global store.' This clearly identifies what the tool does and differentiates it from sibling tools like get_issue or get_context by focusing on cross-project gotchas in a global store.

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 implies the tool should be used when cross-project gotchas are needed, but it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention any exclusions. It provides context about governance but no direct routing guidance, so usage remains implied rather than explicit.

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