oc_gate_inspect

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds specific behavioral details: never invokes solver, never makes third-party HTTP call, never bypasses. This reinforces the read-only nature and provides extra context beyond annotations, though annotations already convey the core safety profile.

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?

Two sentences, no wasted words. The first sentence states the purpose, the second adds critical behavioral caveats. Front-loaded and efficient.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description clearly indicates it returns facts about gate status (whether gated). The limitations (no solver, no bypass) are stated. With annotations covering read-only and idempotency, the description is complete for a detection-only tool. Agent knows what to expect and what not to expect.

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% with one required parameter (tabId) having a clear description. The tool description does not add any additional meaning beyond what is already in the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Description clearly states the action (detect) and resource (current tab gate status). It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying what it does not do (never invokes solver, never makes third-party call, never bypasses). This is a specific verb+resource with differentiation.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: to detect gates without action. It also explains what it does not do (no solver, no bypass) and that host agent decides next steps. This provides clear context and exclusions, guiding appropriate usage.

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