gate_health

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavioral traits. It does not state if the tool is read-only, destructive, requires authentication, or has side effects. 'As data' implies read-only, but this is not explicit.

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, which is concise, but it front-loads jargon ('aSPARK gate invariants') without explanation. While not verbose, the structure could be improved by clarifying the tool's action earlier.

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 the lack of output schema, annotations, and parameter explanations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, how to interpret the data (orphan tasks, etc.), or how the tool fits into the broader set of sibling tools.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain parameters, but it only mentions 'feature' generically. It does not clarify what 'feature' means, what 'repo' (default '.') refers to, or how they affect the output. The parameter semantics are almost entirely absent.

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 vaguely indicates that the tool retrieves data about gate invariants (orphan tasks, unverified acceptance criteria, open findings) for a feature, but lacks a clear verb like 'get' or 'list', making its purpose ambiguous. Compared to sibling tools, it's not immediately obvious what specific action it performs.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'impact', 'staleness', or 'story_trace'. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or scenarios where gate_health is appropriate.

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