runrunit_check_pr

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden: it discloses read-only behavior, default comparison refs (origin/development or origin/homolog), and that next_tool is always null. However it never says what the checklist returns on pass/fail, nor whether it errors or reports violations, which matters for a no-output-schema tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the safety profile ('Read-only') first, then constraints, then the sibling exclusion. Dense but efficient; the bracketed Portuguese placeholders are compact notation for the naming convention rather than waste.

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 read-only validation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers what is checked and the default base ref but is silent on the result shape (pass/fail reporting, list of violations), which an agent needs to interpret the call's outcome.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, and the description goes further by documenting the default for 'base' (origin/development or origin/homolog unless set), which the schema does not state. That is genuine added semantic value.

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 the resource and the checks performed (branch naming, commit subject format, one file per commit) and explicitly distinguishes itself from the PR-creating sibling with 'Does not open a pull request.' The verb is only implied ('check' via the name), but the scope is otherwise specific.

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?

Positioning as a read-only pre-PR checklist and the note that it does not open a pull request implies when to use it, but there is no explicit 'use this when X, use runrunit_create_pr_github when Y' routing. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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