Get background check results

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

The description states 'Read-only, zero tokens', consistent with the readOnlyHint annotation. It adds behavioral context: the first time a FAILED run is collected, it records a 'checks' audit event, which goes beyond the annotation.

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 concise and well-structured: it opens with the purpose, specifies priority of inputs, lists return fields, and ends with usage guidance. Every sentence adds value with no redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description lists return fields (status, per-check results, ageSeconds) and explains the audit event. The 3 parameters are clearly explained through the precedence logic, making the tool's behavior fully specified.

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 33% (only ticket has a description). The description compensates by explaining the precedence logic among runId, ticket, and project, adding meaning beyond the schema's minimal descriptions.

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 'Collect the results of a background static-check run' and explains the priority of inputs ('by runId, else the newest run for a ticket, else the newest run overall'). It returns specific fields, distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'start_checks' and 'commit_feature'.

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 provides explicit usage guidance: it 'closes the async loop' after starting checks, advises collecting uncollected runs between tickets or before ending the session, and explains implications of a failed run ('fix it now or file a bug').

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