dev_check

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states that only DevTwin-recognized commands are ever executed (never arbitrary strings) and that each command has a timeout, which is valuable safety information. It doesn't mention side effects or output specifics, but the core behavioral constraints are transparent.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then safety details, then usage guidance. Every sentence earns its place with specific, actionable information and no filler.

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?

The tool has an output schema, so return values are documented separately. The description covers safety, usage flow, and available options, but omits any mention of the workspace parameter and doesn't clarify behavior when no checks are recognized. Given the tool's complexity and the availability of an output schema, these are minor gaps.

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 explains the 'run' parameter (restrict to a subset of recognized commands) and directs the agent to dev_project_info to see valid values. However, the 'workspace' parameter is completely unaddressed; an agent might not know it represents the working directory. The explanation for 'run' is helpful but not comprehensive for both 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 tool runs recognized project checks (tests/lint) with concrete examples (pytest, gradlew test, npm test, cargo test). It uses a specific verb 'Run' and a well-defined resource, distinguishing it from sibling tools like dev_detect or dev_health which have different purposes.

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 advises calling dev_project_info first to discover available commands and to use the 'run' parameter to restrict execution to a subset. This provides clear context and a specific prerequisite, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use this tool.

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