check_my_work

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: it enumerates the checks performed (tests run after last change, pass/fail and causes, test edits used to force passes, lingering failures, risky actions) and the shape of the answer ("Looks done" versus what to fix first). It does not state that the tool is read-only/side-effect free, nor any cost, auth or timing traits, which is the remaining gap.

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?

Front-loads the imperative call-to-action, then explains the checks and the output in three compact sentences. Slightly chatty with phrases like "the way a reviewer would," but every sentence is doing work.

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 two-optional-param, no-annotation, no-output-schema tool, the description covers what is inspected and what the response means well enough to invoke it correctly. It omits how it relates to the other audit/status tools, which is the only real completeness gap.

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 100% and both params are optional with clear "only if dotpals picks the wrong session/project" semantics already in the schema. The description itself adds no parameter meaning, so the baseline 3 applies.

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: it checks the agent's own session in the current project, described concretely as a reviewer-style audit of tests, failures, test tampering and risky moves. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like test_status and risky_steps, whose territory it partly claims.

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 an explicit trigger: "Call this before you tell the user your work is done." That is a clear when-to-use signal. It stops short of naming alternatives (e.g. test_status, ready_to_merge, risky_steps) or saying when not to call it, so the routing guidance is incomplete.

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