show_quality_gate

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently states that the tool fetches detailed information, requires an environment variable, and needs exactly one of name or gate_id. The read-only nature is implied by 'Fetch'. It doesn't describe error handling or edge cases, but the essential behavior is disclosed.

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 compact and well-structured: it leads with the core purpose, then details preconditions, parameter constraints, and an example. Every sentence earns its place with no redundant filler.

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 simple two-parameter tool with an output schema, the description is complete. It covers the tool's purpose, prerequisites, required parameter selection, and a usage example. The existence of an output schema means return value details need not be repeated. No significant contextual gaps remain.

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 description coverage is 100% and the schema already documents each parameter's meaning and the 'either name or gate_id required' rule. The description adds an example and reiterates the requirement but does not offer deeper parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Fetch full gate definition (conditions, allowed actions)', which clearly states what the tool does and distinguishes it from the sibling list/search tools by emphasizing 'full' detail. The example and mention of 'a specific quality gate' reinforce the targeted scope.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'so LLMs can explain or compare them'. It also states prerequisites (SONARCLOUD_ORGANIZATION) and the either/or requirement for name or gate_id. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or give 'when not to use' guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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