trw_build_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It reveals critical behaviors: does not execute subprocesses, conditionally fails tests based on min_coverage, and lists output fields. It does not mention authorization or side effects, but for a recording tool, it is sufficiently transparent.

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 well-structured with clear sections (Use when, Input, Output) and front-loaded with the main purpose. While it is fairly long due to 10 parameters, every sentence adds value; no wasted words. Slightly verbose but efficient for the complexity.

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 10 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all parameter meanings, usage context, behavioral nuances, and output fields. An agent can confidently invoke the tool without additional documentation.

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 schema description coverage is 0%, but the tool description compensates excellently. Every parameter is explained with its purpose, constraints, and behavioral effects (e.g., min_coverage falling tests_passed, mypy_clean as legacy alias). This adds significant value beyond the plain schema.

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 records build/test results for ceremony tracking and delivery gates. It specifies the verb (record) and resource (build/test results), and the multiple use cases (after validation, for delivery gates, Q-learning feedback) differentiate it from siblings.

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 when-to-use scenarios and a key when-not instruction: 'This tool does NOT execute subprocesses — run validation commands first, then call this with the results.' It lacks explicit alternative tool names, but the context is clear enough for most agents.

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