validate_gate

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

With no annotations, the description does the heavy lifting: it discloses the gate range (1–7), the prerequisite dependency on get_gate_criteria, and the outcome shape (PASS or FAIL with remediation details). It does not say whether validation is stateless or records the result against the project, which is the main remaining ambiguity.

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?

Core instruction and constraint are front-loaded in the first two sentences; the example follows as supporting material. The example is long but earns its place by demonstrating the nested dict format that the schema cannot express.

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?

Covers the nested-object parameter, the sibling dependency, and the return verdicts, and an output schema exists so return values need not be detailed further. Minor gap: no statement about out-of-range gate numbers or whether a failed validation has side effects.

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 0%, so the description carries the burden and does so well: gate_number constrained to 1–7, answers defined as a dict of criterion_key to True/False keyed by get_gate_criteria output. The worked example makes the nested-object shape unambiguous.

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 ("Validate a gate checkpoint") and immediately scopes it to gate numbers 1–7 with a criteria-keyed boolean payload. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling get_gate_criteria, which supplies the keys rather than validating them.

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?

Explicitly directs the agent to obtain keys from get_gate_criteria(gate_number) using the exact keys, which establishes the required call ordering against the sibling. It lacks an explicit "do not use when..." clause or note about whether this can be run before criteria are fetched.

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