get_project_quality_gate_status

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the required identifier constraint, the meaning of all return statuses including a deprecation note for WARN, and the presence of failing condition details. It does not discuss side effects or authentication, but for a read-only status check this is sufficient and adds value beyond the schema.

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 well-structured: a clear opener, a concise constraint statement, a bullet list of status values, and an illustrative example. It avoids redundant filler and every sentence contributes useful information, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 presence of an output schema (which covers return structure) and the optional parameter set, the description fully covers the tool's context. It explains the input identification requirement, the meaning of the returned statuses, and demonstrates usage. No critical context is missing for an agent to select and invoke 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds a cross-parameter constraint (at least one of analysisId, projectId, or projectKey) that is not enforceable in the schema, and provides an example showing how to combine projectKey with pullRequest. This enhances understanding of how the parameters relate.

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 clearly states the tool checks whether a project/branch/PR passed its quality gate and inspects failing conditions. It specifies exact output statuses (OK, ERROR, WARN, NONE) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like list_quality_gates or show_quality_gate by focusing on gate status and failure details.

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 provides a concrete usage requirement ('At least one of analysisId, projectId, or projectKey must be provided') and a realistic example with projectKey and pullRequest. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases, but clearly frames when this tool is appropriate for checking gate status on a specific entity.

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