gates_init

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, destructive=false, idempotent=false, so the safety profile is partly covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context beyond that: it will refuse to overwrite an existing file, which tells the agent the failure mode and that a retry needs a different path or gates_abandon first. It still omits whether parent directories are created and whether the path is returned.

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?

Three short sentences, each doing distinct work: what it creates, the one behavioral guard that matters, and the spec grammar. Front-loaded with the action and free of 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 file-scaffolding tool with six documented parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essentials: purpose, overwrite behavior, and the gate string format. Missing only minor details such as return value and directory-creation behavior, which do not block a correct call.

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 83%, so the schema already documents the key parameters including the gates array format and the default ledger path. The description's gate-spec format string largely restates the schema's own description of `gates`, adding little new meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb+resource combination: "Scaffold a new gate ledger file." The word "new" plus "scaffold" distinguishes it from sibling readers/mutators like gates_check, gates_lint, and gates_status, though it never names those siblings explicitly.

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 is implied: you call this to create a ledger before check/lint/report operations can run. There is no explicit "use this when..." guidance, no mention of the lifecycle position relative to gates_check or gates_abandon, and no statement about what to do if a file already exists beyond the refusal note.

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