validate_quality_gate

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It mentions 'Run... checks' but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, if it modifies data, what permissions are needed, or how results are returned. The term 'checks' implies analysis, but specifics like output format or error handling are missing.

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 a single, efficient sentence that front-loads the purpose ('Run canonical parity/quality checks') and lists specific examples. It avoids unnecessary words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating examples with commas). Every part contributes to understanding the tool's scope.

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?

Given no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It specifies what checks are run but lacks details on behavior, results, or usage context. For a validation tool with potential side effects or complex outputs, more information is needed to guide an AI agent effectively.

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 100%, so the schema fully documents the single parameter 'requirePar'. The description adds no parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema, but it implies the checks relate to parity/quality, which aligns with the parameter's purpose. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation.

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 clearly states the action ('Run') and the type of checks ('canonical parity/quality checks'), with specific examples listed (par-shortest, timeout rule, warp parity, hot coals shortcut diagnostics). It distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on validation rather than creation, editing, or analysis, though it doesn't explicitly name alternatives.

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?

No explicit guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description lists specific checks but doesn't indicate context (e.g., after level creation, before publishing) or exclusions. Sibling tools like 'check_publish_readiness' or 'analyze_difficulty' might overlap, but no comparison is made.

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