check_quality_gates

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

The description explicitly states 'Read-only', which aligns with the annotations (readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false). It goes beyond annotations by clarifying the response behavior when no gates are configured (returns NO_GATES_CONFIGURED, not misleading PASS) and when use_default_gates is set. This prevents misinterpretation and adds valuable behavioral 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 well-structured, starting with the primary purpose and followed by usage context, edge cases, and return format. It is informative without being verbose, though it could be slightly tightened (e.g., combining the CI and PR sentences). Overall, every sentence adds value, justifying a score of 4.

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 5 parameters (100% schema coverage), no output schema, and moderate complexity, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, when to use, edge cases (no gates, default rules), and return structure. It also mentions the JSON response format. This level of detail ensures an agent can correctly invoke and interpret the tool without additional context.

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?

With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by explaining the use_default_gates behavior ('Opt-in to the conservative built-in default ruleset...') and the output_format options ('json' vs 'sarif'). It also clarifies the semantics of 'scope' and 'config' indirectly. These additions raise the score above baseline.

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 specifies the tool's verb ('Run configurable quality gate checks'), resource ('project'), and outcome ('Returns pass/fail for each gate'). It lists the specific gate types (complexity, coupling, circular imports, etc.), making the purpose unmistakable. While it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, the unique scope ('quality gates') and the detailed gate list provide strong distinctiveness.

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 clear context for when to use the tool: 'Use before PR/commit to ensure quality standards' and 'Designed for CI integration — AI can verify gates pass before committing.' It also explains the special case when no gates are configured, which helps the agent understand the tool's behavior. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools for similar tasks, slightly limiting guidance.

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