list_quality_gates

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

With no annotations provided, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only states 'List all quality gates.' It does not explicitly confirm this is a read-only operation, describe the return payload, pagination, or any access requirements. The verb 'list' implies read-only, but the behavioral contract is largely implicit.

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 a single four-word sentence that states the action and resource without any filler. It is appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity, though it sacrifices informative detail for brevity.

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 tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description should explain both the structure of the returned data and the typical use case. 'List all quality gates' only conveys the operation, not what a quality gate is, what fields are returned, or how this relates to siblings like get_quality_gate_status. An agent can invoke it, but cannot confidently predict the response or know when it is the right choice.

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 tool has zero parameters and an empty properties object, so schema coverage is effectively 100% and there are no parameters to explain. The baseline of 4 applies because no parameter semantics are needed to invoke the tool correctly.

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 specifies a clear action ('list') and a clear resource ('all quality gates'), making the primary purpose unambiguous. It indirectly differentiates from sibling get_quality_gate_status by focusing on the full collection rather than a status, but it never explicitly names any sibling or clarifies what a quality gate entails.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention any conditions, exclusions, or sibling tools such as get_quality_gate_status or search_metrics, leaving an agent without the context needed to choose between them.

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