Determine if a weapon fix run passes by confirming target cases succeed, no other metrics worsen past tolerance, and probe checks are trusted.
Pass only if the target cases pass, nothing else got worse past its tolerance and the checks are trusted.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| run_id | Yes | ||
| targets | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the pass/fail decision logic, which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the tool is read-only or records/writes a verdict, whether it requires a baseline or approval, what happens on failure, or any auth constraints.
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?
A single tight sentence with three parallel conditions; nothing is padded. It is under-specified rather than overwritten, but structurally it is front-loaded and wastes no 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?
For a verdict/mutation-capable tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero parameter documentation, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what it returns, what state it changes, or how to populate run_id and targets correctly.
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 0% across two parameters. The phrase 'target cases' loosely hints that the optional 'targets' parameter supplies case identifiers, but run_id is entirely unexplained and no format, defaults, or null-vs-array behavior is described.
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 conveys the criteria that make a verdict 'pass' (target cases pass, no regressions past tolerance, checks trusted), which is distinctive relative to siblings like gate_metrics or gate_cases. However, it never states the actual action — evaluating a run and returning a verdict — so the verb is left for the agent to infer from the name alone.
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 guidance on when to call this versus gate_run, gate_cases, gate_metrics, gate_propose, or gate_approve, and no stated prerequisites or sequencing within the gate pipeline. Usage can only be inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.