Search the Gatehouse registry

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so no contradiction. The description adds valuable behavioral context: returns a ranked list with vetted items first, includes status and health. It does not mention pagination behavior, but schema covers limit parameter.

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 with zero fluff. Each sentence serves a purpose: first defines what the tool finds, second covers filtering, results, and sibling alternatives. Efficient and front-loaded.

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 search tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers: tool scope, filter options, result format (ranked list, status, health), and when to use siblings. No gaps remain for an agent to understand its usage.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description restates filter options (query, category, kind, status) and adds ranking behavior, but does not significantly elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema.

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 the tool finds agent tools (MCP servers, skills, plugins, subagents, frameworks) in the Gatehouse registry. It explicitly distinguishes from siblings by referencing get_tool for full records and check_tool for safety verdicts.

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 directly advises when to use this tool versus alternatives: 'Use get_tool for the full record or check_tool for a quick "is it safe" verdict.' This provides clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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