Full Gatehouse record for a tool

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

The description discloses what data the tool returns, including conditional existence of an audit write-up. The readOnlyHint annotation aligns with the retrieval nature. No contradictions, though additional context like authentication or rate limits could further enhance transparency.

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?

Two sentences efficiently convey purpose and usage guidance, with no superfluous words. The structure is front-loaded with the core function followed by the alternative.

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 single-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what data it provides. No missing context for agent decision-making.

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 parameter tool is documented in the schema with an example value. The description adds no further parameter semantics, but since schema coverage is 100%, a score of 3 is appropriate as the schema already handles the meaning.

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 defines the tool as retrieving the complete Gatehouse record for one agent tool, listing the included components (metadata, compatibility, liveness, verdict, audit write-up). It distinguishes itself from the sibling check_tool by specifying that get_tool provides the full record, while check_tool gives only a quick verdict.

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 explicitly tells the agent when to use this tool versus the alternative: 'Use check_tool instead if you only need the quick safe/not verdict.' This provides clear context for correct selection.

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