run_check

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose a meaningful trait: validation happens 'without running any local program,' implying a safe, non-executing check. However, it says nothing about return values, failure behavior, permissions, or side effects.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. The validation target and the no-local-execution constraint are both stated efficiently.

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 zero-parameter validation tool with no output schema, the description is only partially complete. It explains what is checked but not what the check returns or how failures are reported, so an agent cannot fully predict the result.

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 tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty. The description does not need to explain parameters, so the baseline is 4.

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 and scope: 'Validate graph links and visible approval gates.' That is clear enough to distinguish it from most siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the closely related gate_check tool.

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?

It implies usage by saying what gets validated, but it gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. It especially fails to clarify how it relates to or differs from the sibling gate_check tool.

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