Execute a quality gate such as unit tests or linters for an item and record the outcome with evidence. Use for directly runnable gates; agent-based gates are recorded separately.
Execute a command gate (tests, linters) and record the result with its evidence. Agent gates cannot be run this way; they are recorded with ddflow_gate_record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | Item id. | |
| gate | Yes | Gate id, e.g. unit_tests. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does reveal that the tool executes commands and records results, which implies side effects. However, it does not mention failure behavior, permissions, or what 'evidence' means, so some behavioral context is missing for a command-execution tool.
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, no wasted words, and the core action is front-loaded. The second sentence directly addresses the most likely confusion with a sibling tool, making the description both compact and informative.
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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the essential invocation details and differentiates from the relevant sibling. The absence of an output schema means return behavior is not explicitly described, but the tool's purpose and parameters are sufficiently clear for correct use.
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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter context by explaining that the gate is a command gate (tests, linters) and that agent gates are not valid here, which goes beyond the schema's simple 'Gate id' description.
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 states a specific action ('Execute a command gate') and resource ('tests, linters'), and clarifies the result is recorded with evidence. It also distinguishes itself from ddflow_gate_record by excluding agent gates, making the tool's scope clear relative to a key sibling.
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 says when not to use this tool: agent gates cannot be run this way and should instead use ddflow_gate_record. This provides clear routing guidance and names the alternative, leaving no ambiguity about the intended use case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.