gate_reconcile

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does so richly. It explains the freezing behavior of gates, that 'moot' closes without counting as a decision and is reversible via gate_reopen, that 'repose' rewrites the question and resets asked_count, and that both verdicts require evidence naming a path or commit. This goes well beyond the schema.

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 front-loaded with the action, then gives the rationale, the timing, and the verdict semantics in a compact sequence. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no filler or repetition of schema field names.

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 largely complete for a complex tool with no output schema: it covers purpose, when to use it, what each verdict does, reversibility, evidence requirements, and side effects. It does not describe the return/response shape or the context/recommendation parameters, but those are minor for an agent correctly invoking the tool.

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 63%, leaving several parameters undocumented, but the description adds meaningful semantics to the verdict enum and evidence requirement: 'moot' is never a decision the principal did not take, and 'repose' resets asked_count. It does not individually explain context or recommendation, but the conceptual grounding it provides is valuable.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Re-check a pending gate against the tree as it is now.' It clearly distinguishes gate_reconcile from sibling tools like gate_raise, gate_decide, and gate_reopen by explaining that it addresses stale pending gates whose frozen questions may have been answered or invalidated by later work.

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 usage directive: 'Run this over every pending gate before putting any of them to the principal.' It also references gate_reopen for reversibility. It does not explicitly state when not to use it versus all alternatives, but the context is strong enough for an agent to know when it applies.

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