run_grep_checks

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

No annotations are available, so the description must fully cover behavioral traits. It does not mention whether the tool is read-only, its output format, or any side effects. The list of checks indicates a scan operation, but more context (e.g., 'no modifications') is needed.

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, efficient sentence that lists examples. It is front-loaded and contains no fluff. Slightly improved structure (e.g., bullet points) could enhance readability but current form is adequate.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the main purpose and available checks. However, it lacks details about output format and runtime behavior, which are expected for completeness.

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 coverage is 100% for the single parameter 'checks', and the description's explanation ('which checks to run. Defaults to all.') matches the schema description exactly. No additional semantics beyond the schema are provided.

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 tool's function: running code-quality grep checks, listing specific examples like undefined references and TODO markers. It differentiates from sibling tools such as search_code or risk_scan by focusing on predefined quality patterns.

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 usage for code quality checks but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like risk_scan or find_api_calls. No when-not or exclusive conditions are provided.

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