gavel_findings

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, which aligns with the description. The description adds behavioral context: it runs a quick analysis, returns sorted output with gate-blocking NEW findings first, and excludes coverage 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 two well-structured sentences that front-load the main action and efficiently convey the tool's purpose, behavior, and filtering options.

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 5 parameters with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description covers the main purpose and key behavior. It could mention the output format more explicitly but is adequate for a scanning tool.

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 coverage is 100%, and the description adds value by explaining that limit applies only to the detailed list while the summary counts all matches, and by clarifying the gavelspace parameter defaults to the current directory.

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 discovers lint findings across a project, specifies it returns a by-rule summary and a sorted flat file:line list, and distinguishes from sibling tools by noting 'no coverage'.

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 tool is for quick analysis when you want all findings without coverage, but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like gavel_coverage or gavel_trends.

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