seshat_run_static_check

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), the description discloses concrete behavioral details: it opens no database connection, writes no file, returns a boundary object recording live_validation as 'not_run', does not claim semantic correctness, and sets outcome to 'blocked' on error severity. This significantly enriches the agent's understanding.

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 and well-structured: a one-line action, followed by clear use-cases, return behavior, and read-only note. Every sentence earns its place with no redundancy or 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?

With one parameter, an output schema, and a clear explanation of return values (findings plus boundary object) and outcome semantics, the description provides a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema coverage for the single parameter 'workspace' is 100% with a clear description including path resolution and refusal constraints. The tool description adds no extra parameter semantics, so it rightfully relies on the schema; the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Run the static governance rules and state what was not checked.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like seshat_get_status or seshat_export_evidence_pack by focusing on rule execution and explicit scope.

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 contains explicit 'Use when' and 'Not for' sections, specifying when to use the tool (committed SQL/TMDL/PBIR/readiness artifacts without a database) and excluding live data validation, pointing to a separate CLI operation. This fully addresses when-to-use and alternatives.

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