get_research_gates

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It usefully mentions the singleton-based current runtime and the returned fields evaluated_at, build_id, and evidence, but it does not clarify whether the operation is purely read-only, what side effects may occur, or how failures are presented.

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 appropriately short and front-loads the core gate types before adding runtime details. Every sentence adds useful information, though the mixed punctuation and somewhat cryptic phrasing keep it from being maximally polished.

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?

With no output schema, the description should clarify what the returned data represents. It names evaluated_at, build_id, and evidence but does not explain their types, possible values, or how gate results are encoded. This is sufficient for a simple zero-parameter read, but an agent still lacks a complete return contract.

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 and an empty input schema, so there is no parameter burden for the description to handle. The baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to explain parameters it does not have.

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 identifies the resource as research validation gates and enumerates the exact gate types (ENGINEERING_GATE, DATA_GATE, MODEL_PREDICTIVE_GATE, TRADING_EDGE_GATE). It is more specific than simply restating the tool name, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools.

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 gives some context by noting that each evaluation is based on the current runtime, but it does not explain when to prefer this tool over alternatives such as get_forward_test_status, get_model_leaderboard, or get_analysis_packet. No exclusions or alternative routing are provided.

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