tidy_gate

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it prominently warns '[NOT IMPLEMENTED YET]', which is critical behavioral information. It also discloses the checks performed and the outcome behavior ('passes or fails with reasons'). It does not mention side effects or whether any state is modified, but as a verdict tool that is a minor gap.

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 compact, front-loads the essential 'NOT IMPLEMENTED YET' warning, and packs the tool's purpose, checks, and outcome into one efficient sentence. Every word contributes meaning and there is no filler or repetition.

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 zero-parameter, no-output-schema tool with no annotations, the description covers the main use context, the included checks, and the pass/fail result. It could be more explicit about the exact return format or how 'reasons' are presented, but 'passes or fails with reasons' is sufficient for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so the no-parameter baseline applies and there is nothing for the description to elaborate on. The description's mention of the checks run adds context without needing to explain parameter syntax or formats.

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 opens with 'CI and pre-push verdict', making the tool's role immediately clear, then enumerates the specific checks it runs: drift, cleanup regressions, publish readiness, and decision compliance. It stops short of a 5 because it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like tidy_drift or tidy_cleanup, though the aggregate nature is strongly implied.

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?

'CI and pre-push verdict' provides a clear context for when the tool should be considered, and the listed checks signal that this is an aggregate gate rather than a single-purpose diagnostic. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternative tools, so it lacks the explicit routing needed for a 5.

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