KB Gate Check

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description adds useful context by explaining that the tool records each check to the audit log, is non-destructive, and that readOnlyHint=false is intentional. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral detail beyond the structured fields.

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 three sentences long, front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by key behavioral context and explicit usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff or redundancy.

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 an output schema present and detailed parameter schemas, the description covers the essential purpose, behavior, and usage context. It does not detail output semantics, but the schema handles that; the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description mentions 'pending code action' and 'specific pending action,' which loosely aligns with tool_name and action_diff, but it does not add significant parameter-level detail beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Return a verdict (allow | consult_required) for a pending code action.' This clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from siblings like kb_consult and kb_search.

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 usage guidance is provided: 'Use this in a PreToolUse hook to verify a specific pending action before execution; use kb_consult instead when proactively reading governing rules at the start of a session rather than checking individual actions.' This clearly states when to use this tool versus the key alternative.

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