postrc_gate

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

Annotations mark the tool as destructive (destructiveHint: true). The description adds context by explaining the PASS/WARN/BLOCK outcomes and the requirement to present findings first. It doesn't contradict annotations and provides behavioral details beyond them, such as the need for user review and the consequences of each status.

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 information-dense but every sentence earns its place: it covers when to call, safety guidance, return values, fallback actions, and next steps. It is well-structured and avoids redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description adequately explains the return statuses and their meanings. It also places the tool within the pipeline lifecycle (after postrc_scan, before trace_map_findings). Some nuance about 'reject' and 'question' decisions is left to the schema, but the overall workflow is clear.

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?

The schema fully describes all three parameters (100% coverage). The description adds context around the decision parameter by explaining the statuses (PASS/WARN/BLOCK) and the user's options on BLOCK, but doesn't introduce new parameter-level meanings beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Final checkpoint - ship/no-ship decision.' It identifies the resource (the build) and the action (final gate). It differentiates from siblings by specifying 'Call after postrc_scan completes' and referencing postrc_override, making it distinct.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Call after postrc_scan completes and user has reviewed findings.' Alternatives are given for BLOCK cases ('use postrc_override to accept risks') and a follow-up tool is suggested ('trace_map_findings next'). The strong warning 'NEVER auto-approve' sets clear usage boundaries.

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