typecheck_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses timing behavior (supports explicit execution timing) but does not mention side effects, permissions, or whether the tool modifies files. It also does not explain the format or content of the output, which is important for a project analysis 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?

The description is two sentences, but the first sentence is awkwardly phrased as a title plus fragment. It is relatively concise but could be better structured to separate the purpose from parameter guidance.

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?

Despite the complex timing parameters and an output schema (content unknown), the description does not explain what the tool returns or how results are presented. It also lacks context about prerequisites, project size considerations, or how the tool integrates with the project environment. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with 8 parameters.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning to the timing-related parameters (expected_runtime, timeout, check_after, poll_interval, on_timeout) by explaining their use. However, it does not mention the path, command, or background parameters, leaving those without additional context.

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 starts with a generic prefix and focuses on execution timing rather than clearly stating that the tool typechecks a project. The verb is implied by the name, but the description does not explicitly describe the action (e.g., 'typechecks code for type errors'). It does not differentiate from similar tools like lint_project.

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 provides detailed guidance on how to choose timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) and explains the on_timeout options. However, it does not tell when to use this tool over alternatives (e.g., when to use typecheck_project vs. lint_project or run_tests).

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