Run project checks

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond annotations: 'Only allowlisted base commands are spawned; each runs in the project dir with a timeout, bounded and secret-masked output.' This adds actionable safety context that the readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations do not provide. It is not as rich as mentioning exact side effects or failure modes, but it is solid.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the main action, and includes necessary constraints in zero filler words. Every sentence provides distinct value.

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 complexity and absence of an output schema, the description covers allowed commands and runtime constraints but does not describe the shape of the result (e.g., exit codes, logs, summary). This leaves a moderate gap for an agent needing to interpret the tool's return value.

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?

All four parameters are fully described in the input schema, including enums and descriptions. The tool description does not add extra parameter meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 'Auto-detect and run the project's test / lint / typecheck / build commands' with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings such as analyze_check_failures, which focuses on analyzing failures, whereas this tool actually runs the checks.

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 by saying 'Auto-detect and run' but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like inspect_project or analyze_check_failures. No mention of exclusions or preferred scenarios.

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