Run the readiness gate on a repo

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the operations (redaction self-test, eval against gold set), the return payload (exit code, metrics, failures), and frames it as 'exactly what CI would report,' implying a non-mutating status check. It does not explicitly state non-destructiveness or side effects, but the tone and purpose strongly imply it.

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?

Single dense sentence, front-loaded with the command, no wasted words. Every element (prerequisite, steps, output) earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description provides the essential context: prerequisite, process, and return value. It does not cover error cases or side effects, but for a check tool this is sufficiently complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema for parameters; it mentions the run and output but does not explain how ci or baseline affect behavior, so no additional contribution.

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 ('Run groundwork check in a repo'), describes the exact sequence (redaction self-test then archetype eval), and specifies the output (exit code, metrics, failures). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools by mentioning the redaction self-test and the full gate.

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?

Clearly states the prerequisite ('a repo that has a scaffolded harness') and what the tool does, making when to use it obvious. It does not name alternatives or explicitly state when not to use it, but the condition is specific enough to guide selection.

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