ps_security_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses behavioral traits like blocking on critical findings and holding high-severity issues, which is useful. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error handling, or what 'blocks' means in practice (e.g., returns error, throws exception). For a security tool with no annotations, this is a significant gap.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and details severity handling without waste. Every part earns its place by clarifying the tool's behavior concisely.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and a security tool with potential side effects (e.g., blocking actions), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover return values, error cases, or integration context, leaving gaps for an AI agent to understand full 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 the schema already documents both parameters ('content' as code to scan, 'action' as the gated action). The description doesn't add meaning beyond this, such as examples of valid actions or content formats. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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's purpose as scanning code and enforcing security policy with specific severity-based actions (blocks, holds, warns, logs). It uses specific verbs ('scan', 'enforce') and identifies the resource ('code'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'ps_security_scan' or 'ps_security_config'.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'ps_security_scan' and 'ps_security_config', the description doesn't indicate whether this is for pre-commit gating, continuous integration, or other contexts, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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