security.release_gate

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the tool is read-only, what it returns, whether it raises on failure, or what side effects (if any) it has. 'Evaluate' implies a decision but leaves the actual behavior unspecified.

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 one concise sentence with no filler or redundant information. The core action, object, and timing context are all front-loaded and clearly expressed.

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 and no annotations, the description omits important execution context: what happens when the threshold is met or exceeded, what the return value is, and whether the gate merely reports a result or actively blocks. For an agent to reliably use this tool, it needs more than the current one-line description.

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 0%, so the description must compensate for undefined parameters. It maps the general concept of a 'severity threshold' to failAtOrAbove, but it does not explain what reportPath should point to, accepted report formats, or how the enum values relate to behavior. The schema provides names and enum values, but no semantic depth.

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 uses a specific verb ('Evaluate') and identifies the resource ('source-scan report') and the condition ('against a severity threshold'). It is clearly distinct from siblings like security.scan_source (which generates a report) and security.compare_scans (which compares reports), though it does not name them explicitly.

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 phrase 'before release or merge' provides clear usage context for when this gate should be invoked. It does not explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, so it falls short of a 5.

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