veto_ci_gate

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

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating non-read-only but non-destructive behavior. The description adds that the tool returns a pass/warn/fail verdict with an exit code, but does not disclose potential side effects like creating artifacts or modifying state. This is adequate but not rich.

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?

The description is two sentences long, front-loading the core purpose and ending with compatibility context. Every word serves a purpose, with no fluff or repetition.

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 the main function but lacks details on the return format structure and important parameter behavior (e.g., agent_outputs for agentic loop). Since no output schema exists, the description should compensate more. It is adequate but has clear gaps.

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 100% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate. No additional parameter guidance is provided.

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 is a CI/CD pipeline gate that runs code review, security scan, and secrets scan on a git diff, returning a structured verdict with exit code. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like veto_code_review or veto_security_scan.

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?

The description implies usage in CI/CD pipelines (GitHub Actions, GitLab CI) and combines multiple scans into a single gate. While it doesn't explicitly list when-not-to-use or alternatives, the context of being a unified gate is clear enough for an agent to infer when to prefer this over individual scan tools.

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