repo.run

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the curated/allowlisted nature, which is a behavioral constraint, but it does not mention side effects, output format, or error behavior. This is a moderate gap, as command execution can have side effects.

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 one sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and includes the full command list. It is concise with zero wasted words.

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?

The tool has 3 parameters that are fully described in the schema, but the description does not explain expected return values, side effects, or how to interpret command output. Given the lack of an output schema and annotations, the description is adequate but incomplete for a command runner.

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% for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema except the word 'allowlisted' which is already in the args description. It does not provide additional syntax or format details.

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 clearly states the tool runs a curated command, listing specific commands (test, lint, typecheck, build, smoke). It uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('curated command'), and the sibling tools are all for repo/git operations, so this tool is unambiguously distinct.

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 implies this is the tool for running project commands, and the sibling tools (repo.search, git.status, etc.) are clearly different. However, there is no explicit when-not-to-use or alternative mention, so it relies on context rather than direct guidance.

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