gate_pr_script

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It says 'generate a bash script' but doesn't disclose whether the tool executes the script, writes a file, or prints to stdout; doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or the meaning of 'safe.'

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 entire description is one clear sentence, front-loading the action and outcome. It's concise without unnecessary words.

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?

Despite the workflow complexity (7 flags, multiple stages), the description only lists stages without explaining output format, behavior when flags are off, or what 'safe' means. With schema covering parameters and an output schema presumably present, it's adequate but leaves gaps about the script generation behavior.

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?

All seven parameters have descriptive schema entries, providing 100% coverage. The tool description names the workflow stages but doesn't map them to specific parameters; schema descriptions already cover semantics like 'Skip sim Docker tests' and 'Branch to rebase onto.'

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 uses the specific verb 'Generate' and identifies the resource as 'a bash script' for the 'rebase->pre-commit->sim-Docker-tests->squash->push gate workflow,' clearly distinguishing it from execution-oriented siblings like run_command or run_task.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided. It doesn't mention when to use this instead of run_command or explain_task, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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