Verify All Checks

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

Annotations already set destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description does not need to repeat that. It adds the detail of capturing output, which is useful, but does not disclose other behavioral traits like side effects on the filesystem or required permissions. Since annotations cover the destructive nature, the description meets the baseline without adding significant extra value.

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 sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Run build, lint, and test suite') and immediately states the return format. Every word earns its place, 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 tool with one parameter and no output schema, the description states the input and the high-level return, which is adequate but not exhaustive. It does not specify the exact output structure (e.g., JSON vs plain text), whether it is synchronous, or potential timeouts. Given the lack of output schema, more detail about the return value would improve completeness.

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 describes the path parameter fully as 'Absolute path to the repository root' with 100% coverage. The description does not add any nuance beyond that, relying entirely on the schema. This meets the baseline for fully documented parameters.

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 specific actions: run build, lint, and test suite. It also describes the return format as pass/fail per check with captured output. This distinguishes it from siblings like biome_check (lint) or test_coverage (tests) by bundling all three checks.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as verify_layers or full_diagnose. There is no mention of when it should be used, when it should not be used, or any exclusions. Agents must infer its role as a comprehensive check from the name and content.

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