jade.check

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 does well: it states that the tool waits by default, returns pass/fail directly, names the command that ran, and explains dryRun behavior. It also discloses the fallback behavior for lint (runs typecheck if none declared). The only minor gap is not explicitly stating side effects (e.g., whether running tests could modify files), but for a validation tool this is largely covered by the 'validation command' framing.

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 dense but well-structured: it opens with the core action, then covers defaults, return behavior, dryRun, and multi-project handling in a logical order. Every sentence earns its place, and there is no fluff or repetition of schema content. It is appropriately sized for a tool with 5 parameters and meaningful behavioral nuances.

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 validation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential context: what it runs, how it waits, what it returns, how dryRun works, and how to handle multi-project repos. The timeoutSeconds parameter is documented in the schema, and the description's mention of 'waits by default' plus the schema's timeout bound gives the agent enough to call it correctly. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the schema already documents all 5 parameters. The description adds value by explaining the default kind (build), the relationship between lint and typecheck, and the meaning of target in multi-project repos. It doesn't repeat parameter names but adds contextual semantics that help an agent choose correct values. This is above the baseline 3 because it clarifies behavior that the schema alone doesn't convey.

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 states a specific verb ('Run a validation command on demand and wait for the verdict') and names the resource (build, typecheck, tests). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by mentioning it uses the repository's own Makefile target, npm script, or cargo command, and it explicitly contrasts with dryRun. This is a clear, specific purpose that an agent can act on.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'In a repository with several projects, pass target to check one; with no command at the root, the answer lists the projects.' It also explains the default behavior (waits by default) and the dryRun alternative. This is strong usage guidance that tells the agent when to use this tool and how to adapt to different repository structures.

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