self_test

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose the return shape (passed/exit_code/output), which is useful, but it says nothing about whether the operation is safe/side-effect-free, whether it requires any setup, or how to interpret the passed/exit_code fields. For a zero-parameter self-test this is acceptable but minimal.

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 short clauses with zero filler. The action verb is front-loaded and the return format is stated in a compact second clause. Every word earns its place; nothing is redundant.

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?

The tool is trivial in complexity: zero parameters, no annotations, no output schema, no nested objects. The description covers what it does, why it exists, and what it returns. The only minor gap is a potential note on how to interpret exit_code/passed beyond the raw field names, which is a small omission for an otherwise simple tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, which sets a baseline of 4 per the rubric. Schema coverage of properties is trivially 100% with an empty object, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameters. The description instead correctly documents the return format, which is more valuable here.

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?

States a specific action ('Run the gate self-test') on a clear resource and adds purpose ('proves the tool works in this environment'). It is implicitly distinct from the sibling tools validate and verify, since it tests the environment/tool itself rather than validating some external input. Loses a point only for not explicitly contrasting with those siblings, but the purpose is unambiguous.

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 on when to call this tool versus the siblings validate or verify. There is a weak implication (use it to prove the environment works) but no explicit when-to-use, no exclusions, and no mention of whether this should be run before other tools or as a diagnostic. The agent must infer usage context.

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