Run TypeScript type checker

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the read-only nature of tsc --noEmit implicitly and describes the return format, which is valuable given no output schema. However, it omits timeout behavior, exit-code/error-handling semantics, and the side-effect-free guarantee explicitly — gaps that annotations would otherwise cover.

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 that packs the action, the exact command, and the output structure with zero filler. Every word earns its place.

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 4 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, so the description must compensate. It compensates well for the missing output schema by spelling out error fields, but it leaves gaps: timeout_seconds is undocumented in both schema and description, the files/tsconfig interplay is unaddressed, and failure behavior is unstated. Adequate but not complete.

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 75%, so the schema already documents files, tsconfig, and project_dir. The description adds the 'tsc --noEmit' context, which clarifies how tsconfig and project_dir are consumed, but it doesn't explain timeout_seconds (the one undocumented parameter) or the files-overrides-tsconfig behavior. Value added is marginal over the schema.

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 verb ('Runs'), a specific resource ('tsc --noEmit'), and states the output shape (structured errors with file, line, column, error code, and message). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like run_e2e_tests, npm_run, and nextjs_build, which target different workflows.

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 no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and never mentions sibling tools. Context is only implied by the tool's name and the 'tsc --noEmit' detail; an agent receives no explicit direction on choosing it over the build/test siblings.

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