Run verification

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

Annotations indicate destructive behavior (destructiveHint: true), and the description adds that it runs inside an open workspace. However, no further behavioral details are provided about side effects, permissions, or what 'structured' entails.

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 very short (one sentence), but it is under-specified for a tool with 6 parameters and an output schema. It lacks crucial details, making it insufficiently informative.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description does not explain the command structure, return values, or usage context. For a tool that runs verification in a workspace, it is incomplete.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description should explain parameters, but it does not. None of the 6 parameters (workspaceId, taskId, command, args, workingDirectory, timeoutMs) are described, leaving the agent without necessary context.

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 that the tool runs a verification command inside a workspace, but it does not differentiate from the sibling tool 'shell_run', which also runs commands. The term 'structured' is vague and does not provide enough distinction.

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?

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'shell_run' or 'file_read'. There are no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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