run_static_checks

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

Annotations already declare read-only and non-destructive behavior. The description adds the key behavioral guarantee 'without tool calls', clarifying that no target tool is executed, and 'live' indicates it reads current state. This adds useful context beyond annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentence, front-loaded with the action verb, and contains no filler, redundancy, or extraneous information.

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?

With one fully-documented parameter, an output schema, and safety annotations, the description covers the essential behavior of static analysis. It is sufficient for the tool's low complexity, though it could mention the relationship to sibling tools like inspect_target for greater completeness.

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?

The input schema fully documents the single parameter target_id, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no extra parameter semantics, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 uses the specific verb 'Analyze' and names concrete resources: 'live schemas, descriptions, annotations, and size'. The clause 'without tool calls' distinguishes it from siblings like run_target_tool, clearly positioning it as a static inspection tool.

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 phrase 'without tool calls' provides clear context for using this tool when non-invasive inspection is needed, implicitly contrasting with execution tools. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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