Gate findings

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. The description adds 'Read-only' and reveals return structure with fields. No contradictions; it provides useful behavioral insight beyond annotations.

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?

Three sentences: purpose+ordering, return shape, usage guidance+alternatives. No redundant words, every sentence earns its place.

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?

Given 3 parameters, 33 siblings, and an output schema, the description fully covers purpose, filtering, return format, and usage distinction. Output schema exists, so return details are sufficient.

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 100%, baseline is 3. The description summarizes the filter options with enumerated values (gate ids and severity levels), which adds clarity by grouping and providing quick reference, improving over schema alone.

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 'List recent inventory gate runs and their findings for a project, newest first,' specifying the verb 'list', the resource 'inventory gate runs and findings', and the ordering. It distinguishes from siblings like 'diff_inventory' and 'get_inventory' by mentioning alternatives.

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 explicitly says 'Use to see which CI gates failed on the last crawl; use diff_inventory to compare two commits, or get_inventory for the full snapshot,' providing clear context and named alternatives.

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