run_staged_checks

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

Annotations are absent, placing the burden on the description. The description conveys that it runs validations and safety checks on staged files but does not disclose whether operations are read-only, require special permissions, or produce any side effects. The behavior beyond the action itself is opaque.

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 crisp sentences, with the core operation front-loaded and the usage recommendation in the second sentence. There is no redundant or off-topic content.

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?

The tool is simple (one optional parameter), but the description lacks information about return values or outcomes. Since no output schema exists, the description should clarify what the agent can expect (e.g., pass/fail results, detailed logs). It also does not explain any prerequisites or relationships to sibling tools beyond the scope mentioned.

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 100%, and the single parameter already has a clear schema description. The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, 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 the verb 'Run' and the resource: 'fast targeted validations and Git safety checks only on modified or staged Git files'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by the specific scope of staged files, which also implies a contrast with broader tools like run_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?

It provides clear context by recommending the tool 'for quick pre-commit validation' and narrows usage to 'only on modified or staged Git files'. However, it does not explicitly exclude full checks or name alternative tools for broader validation, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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