gate_proposals

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about what the tool actually does, mutates, or returns. The phrase 'passed, approved' is ambiguous and could imply approval mutation, which would be a serious undisclosed side effect.

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?

It is short, but it is under-specified rather than concise. A four-word fragment is not front-loaded with actionable meaning; it reads like a slogan, not a tool description.

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 an operation sitting among gate_* siblings with no annotations and no output schema, the description is completely inadequate. An agent cannot tell whether calling this mutates state, what it returns, or how it relates to gate_propose/gate_approve/gate_verdict.

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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. The baseline for a 0-param tool is 4, and there is no parameter-related gap to penalize.

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 'Every proposal: passed, approved.' is a fragment that restates outcomes rather than stating what the tool does. It reads as a status summary or a tautology, not a specific verb+resource, and gives no way to distinguish it from siblings like gate_propose, gate_approve, or gate_verdict.

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 guidance, no condition selecting this tool over gate_propose/gate_approve/gate_verdict, and no exclusions. Nothing tells the agent when to invoke it.

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