Run the sixteen OperStack content gates on a local project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and does disclose key traits: it operates on a local folder rather than a URL, and it 'reads files without sending them anywhere,' which establishes a read-only, no-network profile. It does not state runtime, whether anything on disk is modified, or how the report is delivered.

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?

Three tight sentences front-loaded with purpose, then scope of gates, then usage and constraints. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant filler.

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?

For a two-parameter, read-oriented tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers what it does, what it checks, when to use it, and the local-only constraint. It stops short of describing report shape or how many/named gates map to the `only` argument.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds real meaning by constraining the path to a 'local path, not a URL,' which is a distinction the schema alone does not make. The `only` gate-selection parameter is left entirely to the schema.

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?

Names a specific verb (run) and resource (sixteen quality gates on a folder of Markdown/MDX content) and enumerates the exact gate categories checked, so the agent knows what work happens. The 'on this machine / local path, not a URL' framing implicitly separates it from the remote-oriented siblings compare_sites and audit_site.

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?

Gives two concrete triggering conditions: 'Use it before publishing, or when asked what is wrong with a content corpus.' No when-not guidance and no explicit routing to siblings such as audit_site or check_llms_txt, but the usage context is clear.

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