Run the gates for a server

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint=false, and idempotentHint, but the description adds real value: 'No network calls' reinforces the closed-world profile, and 'A missing Python contract test is a failure, not a silent pass' discloses fail-closed semantics an agent could not infer from annotations. It stops short of describing the result shape or runtime/timeout behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core action and then lists the gates; the closing failure-semantics sentence is high-value. The middle sentence is dense with parenthetical detail but every clause carries information, so it earns its length.

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?

For a no-output-schema test-runner, the description covers what is checked and the failure rule, which is most of what an agent needs. It omits the return format (structured report vs. pass/fail) and how long the smoke tests take, minor gaps against the overall thoroughness.

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 description coverage is 0% for both params, so the description must compensate. It does clarify that `id` is the platform id used in test filenames (tests/test_<id>_python.py, tests/<id>.typescript.test.mjs), but `category` is never explained and no format guidance is given for either. Partial compensation only.

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?

States a specific verb ('Run the gates') and resource ('one generated entry'), then enumerates exactly which gates: lint, contract tests, and a stdio smoke of `platform-mcp-hub serve --entry` in both runtimes. This is distinguishable from siblings like lint_entry (a subset) and live_verify/try_tool without opening any schema.

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 phrase 'for one generated entry' implies the tool is used after generation, giving some context, but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over lint_entry, live_verify, or try_tool, nor any when-not condition. Usage is implied rather than guided.

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