run_typecheck

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the entire burden of behavioral disclosure. The description only states the action ('Run only type checking') and gives examples, but omits critical details such as whether the tool modifies files, requires network access, or what output/exit codes it produces. For a command-like tool, this lack of behavioral context is a significant gap, though it's not misleading or contradictory.

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, well-crafted sentence that front-loads the key information ('Run only type checking') and immediately provides clarifying examples. Every word earns its place, with no fluff or redundancy. It's concise, yet sufficiently informative for the simple scope of the tool.

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 core purpose but falls short on behavioral details like side effects or execution context. With no annotations to fill gaps, an agent would not know what happens if project_path is omitted, or whether the tool is safe to run in any directory. It's minimally complete but leaves room for important operational context.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for its single parameter, 'project_path', with a description ('Optional target project directory path'). The tool description adds no additional meaning about the parameter, such as default behavior when omitted or accepted path formats. Since the schema already documents the parameter, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description neither compensates nor detracts.

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: 'Run only type checking', with concrete examples (tsc, mypy, cargo check, go vet). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_tests or run_lint, which cover other check types. The word 'only' explicitly narrows scope, leaving no ambiguity about its intended purpose.

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?

While the description doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state when NOT to use it, the phrase 'Run only type checking' strongly implies that this tool should be used specifically when type checking is the sole requirement, versus run_checks or run_staged_checks for broader validation. It gives clear context but doesn't explicitly enumerate exclusions or sibling comparisons, which would warrant a 5.

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