production_readiness

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds two genuinely useful behavioral facts: the evidence is deterministic (repeatable) and the tool is advisory only, not a gate. It says nothing about permissions, runtime cost, or what evidence is actually collected, so it stops at adequate.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant constraint (no release decision) is placed where it will be read immediately.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining what the agent gets back, and it does not — 'evidence' is left abstract with no indication of report shape or categories covered. For a single-parameter read-only tool this is minimally sufficient but leaves a real gap for an agent deciding whether to call it.

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?

There is one parameter (repo_path) with 0% schema description coverage, and the description does not mention it at all. No format is given (absolute vs relative path, remote vs local, whether it must be a git root), so the description fails to compensate for the schema gap even though the parameter name is largely self-explanatory.

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?

States a specific verb ('gather'), a specific artifact ('deterministic evidence'), and the domain ('production readiness'). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like run_tests or security_scan, but it never names an alternative or delimits what 'evidence' covers, so differentiation is implied rather than explicit.

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?

Usage is only implied: an agent can infer it should call this when assessing whether a repo is production ready. The clause 'makes no release decision' is a useful scope boundary, but no alternatives are named and there is no when-not guidance relative to security_scan, run_tests, or diagnostics.

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