eval_gate

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint: true, so the tool is read-only. The description adds context that it acts as a gate returning a pass/fail result, which is consistent. It does not contradict annotations and provides behavioral context beyond the safety profile.

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 three sentences: a clear purpose statement, usage context, and concise parameter/return description. It is front-loaded and contains no unnecessary words.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema present), the description adequately explains the return format in general terms. It could mention error conditions or detailed result structure, but overall it is complete enough for a gate tool.

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 0% schema description coverage, the description fully explains the single parameter 'min_score' as a minimum acceptable score in the range 0.0 to 1.0. This adds complete meaning beyond the schema's type definition.

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 is a CI gate that passes or fails based on memory health score. It distinguishes from siblings like eval_run by emphasizing CI/CD pipeline use, though it could be more specific about the concept of memory health.

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 explicitly says to use in CI/CD pipelines to block deploys when memory quality degrades. However, it does not mention when not to use this tool or provide alternatives from the sibling list, such as eval_run for general evaluations.

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