gavel_trends

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and openWorldHint, so the bar for behavioral disclosure is lower. The description adds the requirement of a Gavel server and the scope (recent analysis runs), providing useful context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 extremely concise: two sentences totaling 20 words. The first sentence explains the core functionality with specific detail, and the second adds a key requirement. Every word earns its place with no padding.

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 moderate complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, annotations present), the description effectively covers what the tool does, what it requires, and the scope of its output (trends over recent runs). It could potentially mention the return format, but the current level is sufficient for most use cases.

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 100%, so all four parameters are already documented with descriptions. The tool description does not add further meaning to the parameters beyond what the schema provides, meeting the baseline expectation.

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 specifies the verb 'Show' and the resource 'quality trends for a project', listing specific aspects (coverage, findings, verdict history) over recent analysis runs. It distinguishes from siblings like gavel_findings and gavel_coverage by focusing on trends over time rather than current states.

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 states a prerequisite (requires a Gavel server) but does not explicitly differentiate when to use this tool versus alternatives like gavel_findings for current snapshots. Usage context is implied by the description of showing trends, but no when-not or alternative guidance is provided.

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