gate_metrics

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

With no annotations the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of the returned data (provider, unit, direction-of-improvement, tolerance) — useful since there is no output schema. However, it never states that this is a read/list operation, nor anything about scope, side effects, or auth, so the behavioral picture is only half-drawn.

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?

Nine words with zero filler and no repetition. The telegraphic, verb-less phrasing costs some clarity, but not enough to call it padded or poorly structured.

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?

For a zero-param, no-output-schema list tool the description usefully enumerates the return fields, but with no annotations and no schema to lean on it should also say what a 'gate metric' is, that the call is a safe read, and how it relates to the surrounding gate_* family. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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 takes zero parameters, so per the baseline rule a 4 applies; there is nothing for the description to add on this dimension.

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 names the resource (metrics) and enumerates the fields returned, but as a bare noun-phrase fragment with no verb it never says what action the tool performs (list? get definitions?). It is distinguishable from siblings like gate_cases/gate_weapons by the 'metric' subject, but the operation itself must be inferred.

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?

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing guidance at all. The agent cannot tell from the text why it would call gate_metrics versus gate_cases or gate_verdict.

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