get_quality_gate_by_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It notes the required environment variable and the return intent, but does not state read-only behavior, error cases, or side effects. The example adds some context, but the behavioral disclosure is thin.

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 short and front-loaded: main statement first, then a usage sentence, an environment variable note, and a one-line example. Every sentence contributes without 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?

For a single-parameter tool with an output schema, the description covers purpose, prerequisite, and usage example. It does not explain alternatives, but that is handled under usage guidelines; the core information is complete.

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 the description does not need to explain parameters. It adds an example call but no additional semantic meaning beyond the schema's own description of 'project'.

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 a specific verb ('Return') and identifies the resource ('gate currently bound to a project'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like get_project_quality_gate_status (status) and list_quality_gates (listing all gates).

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?

It provides clear usage context ('Use this to determine what quality criteria a project must meet') and a prerequisite (SONARCLOUD_ORGANIZATION). It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong enough.

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