Check a lab

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

Annotations cover safety (destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=false), and the description adds genuinely new behavioral context: it executes inside the running lab, needs human confirmation first, and pass/fail is signaled by exit code with output explaining failures. It doesn't state what a failed run leaves behind, but the added context is substantial.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and its success condition; the audience sentence and the confirmation warning each earn their place. Minor redundancy between the pass/fail explanation and the audience framing keeps it from a 5.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and the description correctly points to the output as the failure explanation. With one well-documented parameter and full annotation coverage, the definition is nearly complete; only the absence of alternative-routing guidance is a gap.

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 the single 'lab' parameter is fully documented there, so the baseline is 3. The description only indirectly adds meaning by implying the lab must be running ('in its running service'); it adds no naming or format guidance 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Run the lab's check (its lab.json) in its running service') and defines the success criterion (exit 0) plus the meaning of the output. This clearly separates it from siblings like lab_status or lab_logs, which observe rather than execute a check.

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 gives context for who it serves (teacher validating a statement/solution, student validating practice) and a caution ('confirm with the person first'), but it never says when to prefer this over lab_status, lab_exec, or check_requirements. Usage is implied rather than prescribed.

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