verdict

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It describes the decision logic (proceed or return questions) but does not specify whether the tool has side effects, requires authentication, or how it processes the input. As a gate function, it likely only inspects state, but this is not confirmed.

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 very concise—only two sentences. It front-loads the core action ('Gate a doubt() result') and follows with clear conditions. Every sentence adds value without 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?

Given no output schema, no annotations, and a single parameter with no description, the description is minimally complete: it explains the tool's function and decision condition. However, it lacks details on error handling, the expected input structure, and the format of the output (blocking questions), which may confuse an agent unfamiliar with the system.

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 for the single parameter 'result', the description must compensate. It only says 'Gate a doubt() result', implying the parameter should be a doubt result object, but provides no structure or constraints (e.g., required fields, type expectations) for this generic object.

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 uses a specific verb 'Gate' and resource 'doubt() result', clearly stating the tool's purpose: to either proceed if the plan converged without doubt or return blocking questions. It distinguishes itself from siblings 'doubt' and 'ground' by referring to the output of doubt().

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 states when to use the tool: after a doubt() result, to decide based on convergence. It implies the condition for proceeding and what to do otherwise, but does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternative tools, though the sibling context provides some differentiation.

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