rc_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals the need for user consent, the state transitions after each decision, and the special timing for Step 6 checkpoints, which goes beyond a simple 'submit decision' statement.

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 succinct but information-dense, with the main purpose stated in the first sentence and the critical usage caution immediately following. All sentences add value, though the checkpoint schedule could be more condensed; still, it is well-structured and front-loaded.

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 complexity of a gate tool with multiple decision paths and no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: user approval, decision meanings, and follow-up actions. It also notes the special case of Step 6, making the behavior fairly complete for an agent to use correctly.

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 covers all 4 parameters with descriptions, but the description adds meaningful context to the decision parameter by explaining that 'approve' advances the step, 'reject' stays and requires a reason in feedback, and 'question' pauses for clarification. This clarifies the impact of each choice beyond the schema's type descriptions.

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 function: submitting the user's checkpoint decision for the current RC Method step. It distinguishes itself from sibling gate tools by referencing the RC Method step count (all 8 steps) and specific step 6 behavior, indicating it is not for PRC or post-RC phases.

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 instructs to NEVER call without first presenting step output and getting user approval, providing a clear precondition. It also details the consequences of each decision (approve advances, reject stays, question pauses), giving the agent guidance on how to proceed after the call.

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