gates_report

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the description's real contribution is explaining why idempotentHint=false: it 're-measures counts at report time instead of trusting memory,' meaning output can legitimately differ between identical calls. That resolves a potential inconsistency an agent would otherwise find confusing. It stops short of covering failure modes, such as what happens when no ledgers exist.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the output content front-loaded before the re-measurement caveat. 'ledger paste' is slightly jargon-dense but the following clause disambiguates it.

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?

With no output schema, the description must carry return-value semantics, and it does by naming the four report elements. Gaps remain around discovery behaviour (all four parameters are optional, so what a zero-argument call yields) and formatting of the 'paste', but for a read-only renderer this is close to sufficient.

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%, including the cwd/file-discovery rules and the HTTP-only authority_file, so the schema already carries parameter meaning. The description adds nothing further about cwd, files, or workspace_root, which is acceptable but not additive beyond the baseline.

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 ('Render') plus a precisely described artifact ('final-report ledger paste') and enumerates the contents: per-file N-of-N gate counts, per-gate state, evidence, abandon reasons. It is clear what it produces, but it never contrasts itself with near-neighbours like gates_status, gates_check, or gates_lint, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.

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 phrase 'final-report' implies the usage moment (end of a run, producing a pasteable summary), but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not, and no named alternative among the many gates_* siblings. The agent must infer from context rather than being routed.

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