gavel_acceptance

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses exit-code semantics (0 = pass, 128+signal = signal death, -1 = spawn failure, 127 = not found), raw merged stdout+stderr, truncation behavior, and the 'cold'/mechanical nature of the run. This goes well beyond a generic 'run a command' statement.

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 dense but well-organized and front-loaded: the core action appears first, followed by the necessary command constraint, verdict semantics, and output details. Every sentence earns its place; there is no filler 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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description fully covers what an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly: command format, working directory, exit-code interpretation, and output shape. It is complete for the tool's complexity and parameter set.

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%, and every parameter (cmd, cwd, timeout_sec) is already documented in the schema with type, constraints, and defaults. The tool description mainly reinforces that the command must be self-contained, which adds marginal value but does not improve on the schema's parameter-level explanations.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Run an acceptance command cold and report the mechanical verdict.' It makes clear this is a command-execution tool focused on acceptance verification, and the absence of sibling tools means there is no risk of confusion with alternatives.

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 gives concrete usage constraints: the command must be a single self-contained shell command, runs from the project root, and the agent must not paraphrase or pre-empt the exit-code verdict. With no sibling tools listed, there is no alternative-routing guidance needed, but the when-and-how guidance is otherwise strong.

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