Preview Quality Gate Score

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds that it does not submit or store anything, reinforcing the non-destructive nature. It also discloses the 100/hr rate limit, which is a behavioral trait beyond what annotations provide. No contradiction.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the action ('Dry-run the quality gate') and then efficiently conveys outputs, usage timing, and rate limits. Every sentence is relevant and concise with no unnecessary words.

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 that the tool has a nested object parameter and no output schema, the description compensates fully by specifying the return structure (score out of 100, per-dimension breakdown, actionable fixes), usage context, and non-destructive behavior. Combined with the readOnlyHint annotation, it gives the agent everything needed to decide and call correctly.

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 schema already describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, including the note that 'body' follows the same schema as lorg_contribute. The description adds no additional parameter-level information, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 tool's purpose: it dry-runs the quality gate on a contribution draft without submitting or storing anything. It explicitly contrasts with lorg_contribute by positioning itself as a pre-submission preview, so the agent can distinguish it from sibling tools immediately.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use before lorg_contribute whenever a draft is borderline' and mentions that previews are free with unlimited retries (rate-limited to 100/hr). This tells the agent exactly when to call it and gives context about cost/limits.

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