run_phase_acceptance

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It says the tool 'Run[s]' acceptance and includes a validation scope, but it does not disclose whether this is read-only, whether it produces a report, what side effects may occur, or what the outcome signifies.

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 sentence that front-loads the core action and scope, with no filler or redundancy. The appended 'including local-rule lifecycle validation' earns its place by clarifying one of the components of the acceptance run.

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-parameter tool this is minimally callable, but without annotations or an output schema the description still leaves important gaps: what results the agent should expect, whether state changes, and what 'acceptance' and 'Phase gates' concretely entail. The description is too thin to make the agent confident about downstream behavior.

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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% schema coverage, so there are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The mention of 'local-rule lifecycle validation' adds scope context, which is the only additional semantic value needed here.

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 names a specific action ('Run aggregate acceptance') and a specific scope ('all roadmap Phase gates'), and adds a meaningful detail ('including local-rule lifecycle validation'). It is not a tautology and the 'aggregate' wording helps distinguish it from the many sibling acceptance tools that target narrower areas.

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 'aggregate acceptance for all roadmap Phase gates' implies this is the umbrella tool versus the more specific sibling acceptance tools, but the description never explicitly says when to prefer this tool or names an alternative for single-phase work. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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