Fetches or writes Gate cases for each gun in a weapon action, including facts, clip read-backs, hand clip checks, and sights.
The Gate cases every gun of an action gets (its facts, each clip's read-back, each hand clip's checks and sights); add writes them into the Gate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| add | No | ||
| action | Yes | ||
| weapon | Yes |
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 full behavioral burden. It does disclose a dual read/write mode tied to the add flag, which is genuinely informative. However it says nothing about permissions, what 'writing into the Gate' overwrites, whether the write is reversible, or what a read returns — critical gaps for an operation that mutates state.
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 a single compact sentence with no filler and the subject is front-loaded, so it is efficiently sized. The density of unexplained metaphor, however, means the brevity is achieved at the cost of comprehensibility, and the parenthetical clause is hard to parse.
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?
No output schema, no annotations, and 0% parameter documentation mean the description is the only information source, and it is too thin. For a tool whose add flag triggers a write, it should at minimum describe the return shape and the write's effect.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for all three parameters. It loosely maps 'weapon' to 'gun', refers to 'an action', and explains that add writes the cases in — but it gives no format, accepted values, or identity semantics for weapon/action, so an agent still cannot confidently populate them.
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 gestures at a verb+resource pair (retrieve the Gate cases attached to a gun of an action, and optionally write them when add is set), so it is not pure tautology. But the vocabulary — 'gun', 'Gate', 'clip's read-back', 'hand clip's checks and sights' — is opaque jargon that an agent cannot map onto a concrete resource without external domain knowledge, leaving the actual purpose ambiguous.
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 the many closely named siblings (gate_cases, gate_add_case, gunkit_action, gunkit_inspect). The only implicit usage signal is that setting add changes read into write, which is a behavioral note rather than a when-to-use rule. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.