run_relevant_checks

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds a strong and valuable constraint: 'Never installs anything', which materially bounds what the agent should expect side-effects-wise. The dry_run listing behavior is also disclosed. It does not describe artifacts written or failure/timeout behavior, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and the check-selection policy in a parenthetical; no filler, no restatement of the title.

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?

With no output schema, the format parameter (markdown handoff vs json report) is covered by the schema, and the description supplies the execution policy and no-install guarantee. It could say more about what happens on check failure or how results are reported, but an agent has enough to invoke it 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?

Schema coverage is 67%, and the description meaningfully augments the undocumented dry_run parameter by explaining it only lists the selection. The remaining parameters (repo_path, format) are covered by the schema descriptions, so the description adds real value on top rather than repeating.

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?

States a specific verb-and-resource action: selecting and running the cheapest meaningful checks for changed files, and enumerates the check categories (syntax, lint, typecheck, targeted tests, build, Playwright). This is clearly distinguishable from siblings like find_repos, check_setup, or verify_task, which do not run 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?

Gives conditional selection context ('build when deps/config changed', 'Playwright for UI changes if configured') and explains that dry_run=true only lists the selection. However, it never states when NOT to use this tool or names an alternative among the siblings, leaving the alternative-routing gap.

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