check_tests

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It transparently states that it discovers/detects files and runs a test execution, but it does not mention potential side effects of running tests, prerequisites, or what 'quick' means. This is adequate but incomplete.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence with three clear actions and no filler words. Every part earns its place, and the structure makes the tool's purpose immediately readable.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description should clarify what the agent can expect back from the check, such as pass/fail results or test output. It also lacks usage guidance and alternative routing, though the single optional parameter keeps the overall context relatively simple.

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 description says nothing about the cwd parameter, but the schema provides 100% coverage for it with 'Project root'. Since the schema already handles the parameter meaning, the description adds no additional semantic value, so the baseline 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 names a specific verb-resource pair: discovering test files, detecting the test framework, and running a quick test execution check. This clearly distinguishes check_tests from sibling tools like check_linting, check_security, and check_architecture, which target different aspects of the codebase.

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 intended use is implied: call this when you need to inspect or execute tests. However, there is no explicit guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as auditing the codebase or checking CI/CD, and it offers no exclusion criteria.

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