gate_decision

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return shape (gate values PROCEED / PROCEED_WITH_HUMAN_CHECK / BLOCK_AUTONOMOUS_ACTION plus exit_code) and the word 'static' hints at a non-mutating read, but it never states read-only behavior, permissions, or side effects explicitly.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler, front-loaded with the purpose and followed by the return values and the parameter rule. Every clause 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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description is right to spell out the returned gate values and exit_code, and it covers the one parameter's omission behavior. It is nearly complete for a simple read tool; only explicit read-only/side-effect disclosure is missing.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage and one parameter, the description must compensate, and it does: it explains that scenario_key selects a single scenario and that omitting it returns the whole ledger summary. That is meaningful semantics the bare string schema does not convey.

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 operation on a specific resource: the current trust state / gate decision of a scenario. The enumerated return values make the tool's output concrete. It does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like verify_prediction or list_scenarios, so it stops short of 5.

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 gives one clear usage rule: omit scenario_key to get the whole ledger summary rather than a single scenario. That is useful context, but it never says when to choose this tool over verify_prediction or ledger_provenance, so guidance is implied rather than explicit.

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