Run project workflow

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is mostly structured. The description adds a genuine prerequisite (requires RACCOON_ENABLE_SHELL=1) and hints that output is 'compact per-step results', which is useful context. It does not explain that arbitrary shell commands execute or how step failures behave.

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?

Two dense sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the single trailing prerequisite clause is the only additional structure.

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 an 8-parameter tool with a nested step array, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage, the description is thin. Critical execution controls (stopOnFailure, parallelism, timeouts, output caps) go entirely unexplained, leaving real gaps an agent must fill by guessing.

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% across 8 parameters, including behaviorally important ones like stopOnFailure, parallelism, timeoutMsPerStep, and maxOutputBytesPerStep. The description mentions none of them and adds no meaning beyond the schema, leaving the agent to infer semantics from bare names and defaults.

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 a sequence of build/test/lint commands in one call.' The 'in one call' scope implicitly separates it from single-command siblings like shell_run and process_start. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative it should be chosen over.

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 offers no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or alternatives (shell_run, build_cache_run, dev_pipeline_start) in this large sibling set. 'In one call' weakly implies batch scenarios, but the agent is left to infer the selection logic.

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