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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses nothing: not that omitting 'execute' produces a dry-run, not what is inspected or mutated, not whether it requires a valid project root. The one useful behavioral fact (dry-run default) lives only in the schema.

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?

It is short but not concise in the useful sense: the single fragment is under-specified rather than economical. No sentence earns its place by conveying actionable information.

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 two-parameter command tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain invocation intent and expected effect. It supplies none of that, leaving the agent unable to reason about when or why to call it.

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 already explains both 'execute' (dry-run default) and 'projectRoot' (defaults to cwd). The description adds no parameter meaning, which matches the baseline of 3 when the schema does all the work.

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 restates the tool name with the generic label '(command)' and adds no verb-resource detail. An agent cannot tell from this text that the tool checks project prerequisites or environment readiness before a build, nor how it differs from siblings like runtime.diagnose or sdk.recommend.

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?

There is no guidance on when to run the preflight, what conditions make it necessary, or which alternatives exist. The text is purely a name-and-label restatement with zero situational context.

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