gates_status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this by saying it executes nothing and modifies no files — consistent, not contradictory. It adds real semantic value by defining what gets flagged (unchecked gates and checked-but-EVIDENCE-pending gates), though it says nothing about output shape or cost.

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 tight sentences, with the read-only guarantee front-loaded ahead of the flagging behavior. Every clause earns its place, including the checkbox-vs-evidence gloss.

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?

There is no output schema, and the description never sketches the report structure (per-gate rows, flag categories, summary counts), so an agent knows the purpose but not the return shape. It is otherwise adequate for a zero-required-parameter read 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 description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters (cwd, files, authority_file, workspace_root) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level detail such as ledger discovery precedence between cwd and files, so baseline 3 applies.

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 and resource: 'Report gate ledger state', plus the key constraint of being non-executing/non-modifying. This lets an agent separate it from gates_check, gates_lint, and gates_abandon, 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 by the framing (inspect progress/readiness of gate ledgers) and the 'checkbox is a claim; evidence is the proof' line hints at the intended audit purpose. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs when-to-use-gates_report-or-gates_lint guidance, so routing relies on inference.

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