codacy_quality

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds context about thresholds and the difference between policies and settings, and mentions cache-control for list_policies. No contradictions.

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 verbose and contains repetitive phrases (e.g., the same sentence appears for get_policy and the top-level description). It could be streamlined significantly without losing clarity.

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?

Adequately explains each action's purpose and prerequisites. However, lacks details about return values or error handling. For a read-only tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, this is sufficient but not exceptional.

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 100%, so baseline 3. The description repeats what the schema already states (e.g., policyId required for get_policy) without adding new semantic information. Minimal extra value.

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 handles quality gate operations (policies, settings, listing) and distinguishes from sibling tools which cover different areas (overview, PRs, repos, security). However, the description is somewhat repetitive and could be more concise.

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?

Provides workflow instructions for each action (e.g., 'get_policy' requires policyId from 'list_policies') and warns against confusing policies with settings. Does not explicitly state when not to use this tool versus siblings, but the domain distinction is clear.

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