run_all_validation

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is run but does not mention potential side effects (e.g., build producing artifacts), failure behavior, or whether the checks are sequential. This is a minimal disclosure.

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 concise sentence with no wasted words. It front-loads the action and lists the components clearly.

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 (no parameters, no output schema), the description is largely complete for an aggregate validation runner. However, it could mention the order of execution or that it is a combined alternative to running each check separately.

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 has zero parameters, and the schema coverage is effectively 100% (empty properties). The description adds no parameter-specific information, but none is needed. Baseline for zero parameters 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 clearly states a specific verb ('Run') and a specific set of resources ('lint, typecheck, tests and build'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools that run individual checks by indicating an aggregate operation.

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 use when a full validation suite is desired, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this over running individual tools (e.g., run_lint, run_unit_tests) or alternatives like validate_changed_files. There is no mention of exclusions or prerequisites.

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