aiworkhub_quality_run_checks

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose real behavioral traits: commands run as argv arrays with shell=False (no shell interpolation) and the tool fails closed on malformed config. It does not state side effects on repo state, permissions, timeouts, or how failures surface, so important context for a command-executing tool is missing.

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?

Three compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and then the two most important behavioral notes. Dense with jargon (.aiworkhub/quality.json, argv arrays, shell=False) but no wasted text.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Combined with the action, security model, failure mode, and the sole parameter's purpose, the definition is nearly complete; missing only side-effect/permission context for a command runner.

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%, so the schema adds nothing about changed_paths. The description compensates by explaining the parameter's purpose (scoping evidence, diff/new-code-first), which is exactly the meaning an agent needs, though it omits expected format/semantics of the paths.

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 (Run) and resource (repo-declared .aiworkhub/quality.json build/test/lint/typecheck commands), which is concrete enough to distinguish it from siblings like aiworkhub_quality_profile or aiworkhub_quality_gate_ratchet. It does not, however, explicitly name an alternative or contrast itself with those related quality tools.

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 'Diff/new-code-first: pass changed_paths to scope evidence' line gives an implicit when-to-use cue for scoping, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance or named alternative among the many quality/review siblings. Usage is implied rather than stated.

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