quality_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a rich set of checks and the verdict outcome, strongly implying a non-destructive lint/analysis. It does not explicitly state whether any modifications occur or elaborate on the verdict interpretation, but its 'lint' wording effectively conveys the read-only analysis intent.

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, dense sentence with a dash-separated list. It is informative and avoids filler, though the long list could be better formatted as bullet points for scannability. Every element adds value, so it remains concise in intent.

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 output schema, the description explains the verdict type ('pass/review/fail') and enumerates the checks performed, which is largely sufficient for a lint-like tool. It lacks information on prerequisites, exact sessionId usage, or detailed output interpretation, but these are minor given the simple parameter set and the rich description of the tool's role.

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 schema contains only a required sessionId string, but the description provides zero explanation of this parameter. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description needed to compensate but did not. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description adds no semantic detail.

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 identifies the tool as a 'PRE-DELIVERY QUALITY GATE' performing a 'comprehensive best-practices lint' and returning a 'pass/review/fail verdict'. It lists specific checks (e.g., unformatted measures/columns, inactive relationships) that distinguish it from more narrowly focused sibling tools like dax_lint or audit_star_schema.

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?

It explicitly says 'Run before shipping a report so nothing goes out broken or untidy,' which gives clear contextual guidance. However, it does not discuss alternatives or cases where another tool might be more appropriate, such as run_bpa or model_health.

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