gate_status

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=true, so the description carries the rest of the burden, and it does so well by enumerating the full contents of the snapshot, which is effectively the return payload given there is no output schema. It does not mention cost, rate limits, or auth requirements, but for a zero-param read this is largely unnecessary.

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?

A single compact sentence that front-loads the read-only nature and then lists the payload contents with no filler or restatement of the tool name.

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?

With no input parameters and no output schema, the description's role is to describe what comes back, and it enumerates every returned facet comprehensively, leaving nothing an agent would need missing before calling 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 tool takes no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a zero-param tool is 4.

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 states a specific verb+resource: a read-only snapshot of the gate's state, and enumerates the exact facets returned (batch progress, LLM loaded, ComfyUI/VoiceStudio status, GPU memory, warnings, last result). It never names or contrasts the sibling tools comfy_batch/voice_batch, so differentiation is only implicit through the read-only framing.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative. Usage is only implied by the 'read-only snapshot' framing, which suggests polling/monitoring as opposed to the action-oriented siblings, but the agent must infer this.

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