check_project

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive), the description adds materially useful behavioral context: every call 're-runs all enabled engines with no caching,' paths default to the project root when omitted, and absolute/out-of-root paths 'return an error response.' It also rescans the tool's safety profile by stating 'Read-only; no files are written or modified,' which is consistent with the annotations — no contradiction.

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?

Four concise sentences, each earning its place: purpose/engines, read-only guarantee, path constraints/default, and the sibling differentiation plus no-caching behavior. Nothing repeats the schema, no filler, and the most important information (what it runs and on what) is front-loaded.

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 only one optional parameter, read-only/idempotent annotations, and an output schema (so return values need no description), the definition covers all informational needs: scope, defaults, constraints, error cases, alternative tool routing, and runtime cost behavior. There is nothing relevant an agent would have to guess about calling this 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 has a single param 'paths' but 0% description coverage, so the description carries the entire burden. It adds crucial meaning: paths are 'one or more project paths,' default to the project root '.' when omitted, and must be relative — absolute or out-of-root paths return errors. That transforms what would be an opaque string array into a fully understandable parameter.

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 pairing: 'Runs and clusters Oxlint and TypeScript (and optionally Biome) lint and type diagnostics for one or more project paths.' It names the exact diagnostics engines, explicitly differentiates from the sibling check_files, and clarifies the full-project scope, so an agent can distinguish it without opening any other tool.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use this for a full project scan; use check_files instead for faster incremental checks after editing specific files.' It names the alternative sibling and the condition that selects it, which is the clearest possible routing for an agent.

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