Run Quality Gate

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

Reveals key behaviors beyond annotations: spawns a detached subprocess, polls with heartbeat notifications, and explains the reflection pass logic. Annotations already provide non-destructive and non-idempotent hints, but description adds operational detail.

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?

Description is well-organized: a concise lead sentence, a 'USE WHEN' section, config details, and examples. No fluff—every sentence adds value.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage, configuration, and behavior. However, it does not explicitly describe the return value format (e.g., status object structure), which would be helpful given no output schema. Still, it implies results include 'preflight_passed' and 'full result'.

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?

Input schema has zero parameters, but description adds substantial context by listing supported config keys (coverage_threshold, test_timeout, force_fresh, reflection, force_reflection) and how they are read from a session file. This is far more informative than the empty schema.

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 clearly states the tool runs a quality gate end-to-end and returns full results. It specifically mentions Phase A quality gate and Step 12 final gate, distinguishing it from sibling 'run_docs_gate'.

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?

Explicit 'USE WHEN' section tells exactly when to invoke the tool (commit pipeline Phase A or Step 12 final gate). It also explains prerequisites: config read from a pipeline session file, and shows an example pairing with pipeline_handoff.

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