search_quality_gates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the SONARCLOUD_ORGANIZATION requirement, pagination, and that it returns a list of projects with association status. This is adequate for a read-only search, though it does not explicitly state 'read-only' or address rate limits.

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 purpose summary, result statement, use case, environment requirement, and example. It is concise without redundancy, fitting all necessary information into a small space.

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 that an output schema exists, the description need not explain return values. It covers the tool's purpose, usage context, prerequisites, and an example, making it complete for a search/list tool.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving an example with gateId, selected, and query, and by mentioning filtering by name and selection status, which maps to the query and selected parameters.

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 pages through projects associated with a gate and supports filtering by selection status and name. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_quality_gates, which focus on listing gates rather than projects.

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 clear use case: 'Useful for understanding which projects use which quality gates.' It also includes an example invocation, but does not explicitly name alternatives or when not to use this tool, so it stops short of full guidance.

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