security_gate

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering mutation safety and side effects. The description adds 'quick' and 'workspace' context, which is slightly beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose what the gate actually does (e.g., what it scans, how it reports failures, whether it touches files). With annotations present, a 3 is appropriate – it adds minimal context but does not contradict or amplify the safety profile.

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 short (two sentences) and front-loaded with the action, but it is under-specified. There is no wasted wording, yet the conciseness does not earn its place because it conveys almost no actionable information. A description this brief would be acceptable only if the schema and annotations carried the load, but they do not for parameters and purpose.

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 tool has no output schema, no parameter descriptions, and a minimal description. There is no explanation of what the gate checks, what fail_on levels mean, what include_flow does, or how results are returned. Even with annotations, the agent lacks essential context to decide when and how to call this tool correctly. The description is far from complete for a security gate with three parameters.

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%, and the tool description does not mention any of the three parameters (path, fail_on, include_flow). The agent must rely purely on parameter names and defaults, which is insufficient for correct invocation. The description completely fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions, leaving parameter semantics entirely unexplained.

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 'Run the quick workspace gate' – a verb and resource, but 'workspace gate' is vague and does not specify what checks are performed, what outcomes are produced, or what 'gate' means in this context. It distinguishes from guardian_audit but does not define its own purpose clearly. A more specific statement like 'Run a lightweight security scan on the workspace' would be clearer.

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 explicitly names guardian_audit as the canonical release gate, implying this tool is for a quicker, non-canonical check. This is partial guidance – it tells the agent when *not* to use this tool (for canonical releases) but does not state conditions for when to use this tool itself. It lacks direct 'use this when...' language, but the alternative reference provides some routing.

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