decision_gate

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

No annotations are present. The description states the tool evaluates and returns a pass/fail, but does not disclose any behavioral traits such as whether it modifies state, requires authentication, has side effects, or performance implications. The description carries the full burden but adds minimal transparency.

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 brief (one sentence), which is concise but lacks sufficient information. It does not front-load critical details, and while concise, it sacrifices informativeness. Every word earns its place, but more content is needed.

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 the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no param descriptions, no output schema details shared), the description is incomplete. It does not explain return format, parameter roles, or usage flow. Sibling tools exist but this description does not situate the tool within a workflow.

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?

The input schema includes 7 parameters (all optional) with defaults and titles, but no descriptions. Schema description coverage is 0%. The description does not explain any parameter's meaning or how they affect behavior, leaving the agent without necessary semantic guidance.

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 uses the verb 'evaluate' and specifies the resource 'migration triggers', with a clear output of 'pass/fail gate'. It sufficiently conveys the tool's main function, though 'migration triggers' could be more explicit. It distinguishes from sibling tools that deal with baselines, regressions, and other evaluation tasks.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, context (e.g., before migration), or when not to use it. Explicit usage context is missing.

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