gate_queue

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does disclose a key side effect: calling this tool records that each gate was put to the principal. It also reveals ordering and the design intent to batch decisions into one sitting, though it leaves details like error behavior and repeated-call effects unstated.

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 and front-loads the core behavior before adding context. The aphorism 'a gate that only asks is a gate that gets deferred' adds flavor and rationale, but it is the least directly actionable sentence, keeping this from a perfect score.

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 compensates for the lack of an output schema by specifying what each queue item carries and noting the audit side effect. It does not mention pagination or parameter-specific behaviors, but both parameters are already well documented in the schema.

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 schema already documents both parameters completely, so the description does not need to carry much parameter burden. It adds no extra meaning for cwd or goal beyond what the schema provides, matching the baseline for 100% schema coverage.

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 identifies the tool as a queue of every pending decision, ordered oldest first, and specifies the fields it carries: age, what each gate blocks, options, and the raiser's recommendation. It distinguishes itself from siblings by tying it to the periodic question round and the recording of gates being put to the principal.

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 gives an explicit use case—'Use this for the periodic question round'—and explains the recording behavior. It does not name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the intended context is clear enough for an agent to select it over a general list or decision tool.

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