plan_launch_preflight

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

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a genuinely useful trait not captured by annotations: unverified checks are never upgraded to passes, which tells the agent how missing evidence is handled.

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 compact sentence with the key constraint front-loaded; nothing is wasted. However, the extreme brevity is closer to under-specification than true economy given the 0% schema coverage.

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?

With no output schema and no parameter descriptions anywhere, the agent must guess the meaning of the three scope values and the ten gate categories. For a tool whose entire value is a correctly-shaped gate table, the description leaves too much to inference.

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%, so the description carries the full burden, and it does not explain the scope enum values (preview/public-free/paid-library) or the evidence object shape. "Explicit observed evidence" hints at the input but adds no semantics for the gate/status/note fields the agent must construct.

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 a specific verb and artifact ("Build a release gate table") and adds scope qualifiers ("from explicit observed evidence"). It is clear what the tool produces, though it does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_export_checklist or plan_visual_qa.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated prerequisites, and no named alternative. The clause "unknown checks never become passes" is a behavioral rule, not a routing condition, so the agent must infer that this is a pre-release gating tool.

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