执行质量门禁

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

Annotations already convey idempotence and non-destructiveness. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by stating that only fixed commands are executed and arbitrary Shell input is rejected, which is important safety-relevant information beyond the annotations.

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 one tightly worded sentence with two clauses. The scope is front-loaded and the safety boundary is stated directly after, with no filler or repetition.

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 simple tool with one optional enum parameter and safety annotations, the description is mostly complete: it specifies which command categories run and explicitly rejects arbitrary input. The remaining gap is the lack of profile semantics and expected output behavior, but this is minor.

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 only parameter, profile, is not mentioned in the description at all, and schema description coverage is 0%. The enum values quick/full are self-descriptive, but the description does not explain what each profile includes or how it changes the run.

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 and resource: it executes only the repository's fixed type-check, MCP test, and application test commands. It also explicitly excludes arbitrary Shell commands, which clearly distinguishes it from generic command-execution tools.

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 implies the tool is for running the repository's predefined quality gates, but it does not say when to prefer it over alternatives or mention sibling tools. It provides a constraint rather than active usage guidance or explicit exclusions.

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