gate_stats

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It conveys that this is a read-only aggregation tool ('what the gate has decided so far'), which implies no side effects, but it doesn't explicitly state that it performs no mutation or whether it reflects real-time or cached data.

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, compact sentence that front-loads the core purpose and lists the key outputs. Every word earns its place with no redundancy.

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 parameterless read-only stats tool with an output schema present, the description is largely complete. It could be slightly stronger by explicitly stating it performs no side effects, but the read-only nature is strongly implied by 'what the gate has decided so far' and the output schema covers return values.

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, so the schema provides no parameter semantics to cover. The description adds value by explaining what the tool reports (counts, verdict split, spend), which is the relevant semantic content for a parameterless tool.

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 ('decided') and names the resource ('the gate') with concrete outputs ('counts, verdict split and spend'). It clearly distinguishes this as a stats/read tool, though it doesn't explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 implies this is a read-only status tool for checking gate decisions, which is clear enough context. However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use it versus siblings like check_action or route_turn, nor does it mention any exclusions.

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