run_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses that commands run without a shell, have a hard timeout, and results are recorded as review evidence. It lacks details on failure behavior or task state changes.

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 concise with four sentences, front-loading the purpose. It could be slightly more streamlined, but it effectively communicates key points without redundancy.

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 the complexity (4 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description provides adequate context but leaves gaps: no return value description, no error handling, and no prerequisites like task ownership.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It lists allowed executables for the command parameter and implies a timeout, but does not define parameters like cwd or timeout_seconds beyond their names.

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 runs an allowlisted verification command (tests/linters/builds) for a task, using specific verbs and resources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by its focus on command execution.

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 usage for running tests/linters/builds and lists allowed executables, providing context. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use or comparison with siblings.

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