quality_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses behavior: checks failures for single file, adds flaky check for multiple files, clarifies thresholds are caller-defined, and notes final decision is human. No destructive or side-effect info needed as it's a read-only analysis 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?

Well-structured into purpose, usage, args, and returns. No unnecessary sentences. However, the first sentence could be slightly tighter (e.g., 'Decides pass/fail on JUnit reports with explicit reasons'). Still, it earns its space.

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 the tool's complexity (4 params, output schema exists), the description covers usage scenarios, parameter meanings, and return fields. Minor gap: does not explain exact flaky rate calculation, but this is acceptable as an implementation detail. Overall sufficient for an AI agent.

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 has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It provides thorough explanations for all 4 parameters: path (with glob example), max_failures, max_flaky_rate (with range and applicability), min_runs (with default). This adds substantial meaning beyond the schema's basic types and defaults.

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 states the tool decides pass/fail on JUnit reports, differentiating it from sibling tools that provide raw data (flakiness_report, parse_junit). It specifies the resource (JUnit reports) and the action (decide pass/fail with explicit reasons).

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?

Explicitly states when to use (actionable decision vs raw data) and describes behavior with single vs multiple runs. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' but provides sufficient context through contrast with 'datos crudos' and sibling tool names.

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