suggest_gates

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the tool's analysis and the four types of suggestions, but does not state whether it is read-only, requires specific permissions, or has any side effects. It also does not describe the output format or data sources.

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 well-structured: a clear first sentence, a concise bulleted list of the four output actions, and a practical list of example queries. Each section adds relevant information without redundancy.

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 description is detailed for a tool with no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema. It covers the tool's purpose, the types of recommendations, and use cases. It could mention prerequisites or limitations, but the example about having no gates configured implies it works from scratch.

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, so the baseline is 4. The description correctly focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameter details, and there is nothing to clarify since the schema is empty.

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 analyzes governance posture and gate configuration, then returns a prioritized list of gate recommendations. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on recommendations rather than execution or checking, and the four action types add specific value.

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 example queries and a zero-configuration starting point, clearly indicating when to use the tool. It does not explicitly mention when not to use it or alternatives, but the examples make the intended use case clear.

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