aisdlc_pev_run

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full disclosure burden and largely fails it — nothing about side effects, permissions, mutability of repo_path, or what a 'PEV run' produces. The only behavioral hint is that it behaves identically to localvibecode_pev_run, which is indirect at best.

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 single sentence is efficient with no filler, but it is under-specified rather than concise — it spends its one clause on provenance rather than on what the tool does or needs. Brevity here comes at the cost of usability.

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 tool with a required free-form parameter, an optional path parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description supplies essentially none of the context an agent needs to invoke it correctly. It doesn't even confirm whether the two tools are fully interchangeable.

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%, and the description says nothing about either parameter. The required 'requirement' string and the optional 'repo_path' are completely undefined — no format, no examples, no distinction between them.

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 only states that this is a 'legacy alias for localvibecode_pev_run' — it never says what the tool actually does (e.g., runs a plan-execute-verify cycle, mutates a repo). It does identify the canonical sibling, but an agent still cannot tell the operation's purpose from this text alone.

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?

'Legacy alias' implies the agent should generally prefer localvibecode_pev_run, which is implicit routing guidance and is the one genuinely useful piece of information here. However, it never explicitly says 'use localvibecode_pev_run instead' or explains when, if ever, this alias should still be invoked (backward compatibility, existing scripts, etc.).

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