Run lifecycle smoke-checks across a folder or specified files, continuing after per-file errors to surface all issues.
Run lifecycle smoke-checks over a folder or explicit file list, continuing after per-file errors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| limit | No | ||
| paths | No | ||
| dry_run | No | ||
| visible | No | ||
| recursive | No | ||
| extensions | No | ||
| output_dir | No | ||
| report_dir | No | ||
| report_name | No | ||
| include_locks | No | ||
| report_formats | No | ||
| continue_on_error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosureasi. It only reveals that per-file errors are tolerated ('continuing after per-file errors'), but it does not explain side effects, whether reports or output files are generated, whether the operation is read-only, or how failures are reported.
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 no filler. It delivers the core action, scope, and resilience behavior efficiently without repeating the tool name or schema fields.
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 13-parameter tool with no annotationsane and no output schema, this description is severely incomplete. It does not explain return values, report generation, scope behavior, filtering options, or any expected outcomes, leaving an agent under-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.
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 0% and there are 13 parameters, yet the description only hints at two: 'folder or explicit file list' corresponding to root/paths and 'continuing after per-file errors' corresponding to continue_on_error. Critical parameters such as recursive, extensions, dry_run, report_dir, report_name, and report_formats receive no semantic clarification.
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 action ('Run lifecycle smoke-checks'), the target scope ('over a folder or explicit file list'), and a distinguishing feature ('continuing after per-file errors'). This differentiates it from sibling tools like smoke_check_session, which appears to be the single-session counterpart.
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 implies a use case (batch smoke-checking over folders or file lists) but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as smoke_check_session or scan_model_files. There are no exclusion criteria, prerequisites, or explicit alternative routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.