run_checks

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

Annotations only supply destructiveHint=false; the description adds a genuinely useful behavioral trait by stating the run aborts at the first failure. However, it omits the side effects of the install step (creating node_modules/.venv), whether output is streamed or summarized, and how long such a run may take, all of which matter for a multi-stage pipeline.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the step list and ending on the most important behavioral fact (stops at first failure). 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?

With no output schema and only a single annotation, the description should carry more weight for a heavyweight multi-step pipeline. It enumerates stages well but says nothing about the result format, exit status reporting, or auto-detection rules for choosing npm vs .venv/pytest vs cargo.

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 single parameter 'dir' has 0% schema description coverage, and the description never explains it. It is unclear whether 'dir' is the project root, a directory to scan, or a working directory for each script, and nothing indicates path format or whether it must contain a package manifest or pyproject.

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 names a specific action (run a check suite) and enumerates the concrete steps: secret scan, install, lint, typecheck, build, test, with toolchain variants for npm, .venv/pytest, and cargo. That makes it clearly distinguishable from siblings like verify_install or run_command, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with preflight, which sounds closely related.

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?

There is no statement of when to use this versus alternatives such as preflight, verify_install, or run_command. The only implicit guidance is the word 'install' plus the flow order, which hints at a full pre-commit/pre-release validation pass, but the agent must infer that.

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