Evaluate the final quality gate

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

Annotations indicate a mutating, non-destructive, non-idempotent operation. The description adds the key behavior that the tool will refuse unless conditions are satisfied, but does not clarify what 'refuse' means (e.g., error, boolean, side effects) or specify any additional behaviors like logging or state changes.

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 a single sentence that immediately conveys the core logic and prerequisites. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The description is sufficient for a simple gate check given the sibling context, but lacks details on return value, side effects, or error handling. For a tool with 3 required parameters and no output schema, more completeness would be helpful (e.g., what 'PASS' means, whether it updates task status).

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, the description compensates partially by naming 'diff summary' and 'acceptance-evidence items', which correspond to the diffSummary and acceptanceEvidence parameters. However, it does not explain taskId or provide any format or usage guidance beyond the schema constraints.

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 conditional verb 'Refuse PASS unless...' which clearly identifies the tool as a quality gate enforcer. It lists distinct prerequisites (inspection, plan, post-change verification, diff summary, acceptance evidence) that distinguish it from sibling tools like inspect_repository or run_verification.

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 implies the tool should be used after all prerequisites are met, but does not explicitly state when to avoid it or name alternatives. The condition is clear, but ordering guidance is inferred rather than stated.

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