run_quality_checks

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

With no annotations, the description provides some behavioral insight: 'Shell-bound' implies execution of shell commands, and 'return a structured per-tool result' indicates output format. However, it does not disclose permissions, side effects, or failure behavior, leaving gaps.

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?

Three sentences, each purposeful: purpose and return, usage context, parameter guidance. Front-loaded with critical information. No 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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, when to use, and parameter usage. It could detail the result structure more, but it is generally 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 coverage is 100% and schema already describes the parameter. The description adds value by clarifying the effect of omitting the parameter ('omit to run all') and providing concrete examples, going beyond 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 clearly states the verb 'run' and the resource 'quality gate', listing specific tools (PHPStan, Rector, ECS). It differentiates from siblings like 'lint_skills' and 'run_tests' by specifying it runs configured quality gates, not general linting or testing.

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?

Explicitly advises 'use before committing' for static-analysis and style gates, and explains how to run a single tool or all. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives, but usage context is clear.

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