gates_check

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false and idempotentHint=false, so the description carries the weight and does so well: it names the command policy engine and its constraints (workspace boundary, env allowlist, timeout, audit) and discloses the side effects of flipping checkboxes and recording evidence. It stops short of explaining failure behavior — what happens when a CHECK does not match EXPECT, and whether partial mutation/evidence recording occurs.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then supporting mechanics, in three tight sentences with no filler. Density is high (policy-engine jargon, inline paths), which slightly taxes first read but nothing is redundant.

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 an eight-parameter, non-idempotent mutation tool with no output schema, the definition explains the mechanics and the completion condition well. The notable gap is return/outcome reporting: with no output schema, an agent is not told what the result contains (per-gate results, evidence paths, failure reporting), which matters for a tool that returns gate verdicts.

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%, so all eight optional parameters are already documented in the schema, and the baseline of 3 applies. The description reinforces the conceptual model (ledger discovery paths, policy-engine knobs) but adds no format, unit, or interaction details beyond what the schema states.

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?

Uses a specific verb+resource ('Evaluate task gate ledgers') and enumerates the concrete actions taken (runs CHECK commands, matches EXPECT, flips checkboxes, records evidence). It implicitly separates itself from read-only siblings like gates_status/gates_lint/gates_report by describing execution and mutation, though it never names an alternative directly.

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?

Usage context is only implied: an agent can infer this is the tool that actually executes checks, versus gates_status (inspect) or gates_abandon. The sentence 'Complete means zero unmet gates; ABANDON gates count as resolved' defines a completion semantic rather than when-to-call guidance, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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