check_gates

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that the tool returns each gate's current score vs threshold and pass/fail status, which is transparent for a read-only check. However, it does not explicitly state the operation is read-only, mention permissions, or address limitations, leaving room for more context.

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?

The description is concise, front-loaded with the primary purpose, then return information, then usage examples. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

The tool is simple with no parameters and no output schema, but the description explains what gates are, what the tool returns, and provides example use cases. Given the complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool confidently.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is 100% (vacuously). Per the baseline for 0 parameters, the description does not need to explain parameters, and it appropriately avoids adding irrelevant detail.

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?

The description clearly states the tool checks the status of all configured governance gates for the workspace, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on gate status and threshold-based blocking, and is not ambiguous.

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 description provides explicit usage guidance with example questions like 'Can we deploy right now?' which help the agent know when to invoke it. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or when-not-to-use it, so it lacks the full 'when/when-not/alternatives' clarity that would earn a 5.

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