run_bpa

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Read-only' and describes the exact return structure (findings plus summary counts). It does not cover edge cases like empty results or error handling, but the core behavioral traits are well communicated.

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 information-dense and structured as five short sentences, each earning its place: purpose, read-only trait, output format, filters, and alternative tool. It is slightly verbose but lacks filler or unnecessary repetition.

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 lint tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values and filter parameters. It references the companion tool fix_bpa for remediation. Missing details include error handling or behavior with invalid filters, but the description is sufficient for correct invocation in most cases.

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 80% (4 of 5 parameters have descriptions). The description largely repeats the filter options already present in the schema (categories, severities, ruleIds, scope) and adds no new parameter-specific detail. Since the schema handles the heavy lifting, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 the Best Practice Analyzer, a catalog of ~90 lint rules across specific categories. It describes the output (findings and summary) and distinguishes itself from fix_bpa by noting it returns findings rather than auto-remediating them. This makes the purpose unmistakable.

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 clear context on when to use the tool (to run the BPA and get findings) and explicitly names fix_bpa as the alternative for auto-remediation. It does not explicitly state when not to use the tool, but the context is sufficient for selecting it among siblings.

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