get_project_quality_gate_status

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only says 'Get', implying a read operation, but does not disclose what the response looks like, how errors are handled (e.g., missing project), or any side effects. The lack of output schema further obscures behavior.

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 sentence, which is concise but too minimal. It omits essential context like parameter explanations and usage notes, making it under-specified for a tool with 2 parameters.

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, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, the description is highly incomplete. An AI agent lacks critical information about what the tool returns, how parameters affect the query, and how to interpret the result.

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 by explaining parameters. It mentions neither 'project_key' nor 'branch', leaving their meaning and usage entirely to the schema's bare names and types.

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 verb 'Get', the resource 'quality gate status', and the scope 'for a project'. It distinguishes from the sibling tool 'list_quality_gates' which lists all gates rather than a specific project's status. However, it does not specify what the status includes (e.g., passed/failed).

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 usage guidance is provided. The description does not indicate when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'list_quality_gates' or under what conditions the branch parameter should be used.

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