tsc_check

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the command, output shape, timeout, and directory behavior, but it does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or mention potential side effects (e.g., creation of incremental cache files).

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 sentence with no waste, but 'dir = subdir' is a bit terse. It is front-loaded with the main action and output format.

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?

For a simple tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context: it states the command, output shape, timeout, and directory scoping. Missing an explicit safety note, but this is a type-check tool and non-mutating behavior is implied.

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 coverage is 100% with parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying that `dir` refers to a subdirectory and confirming the timeout default (`60s`), which enriches beyond the 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?

Clearly states the tool runs TypeScript type-checking via `tsc --noEmit` and summarizes the output as `{status,errorCount}`. The verb and resource are specific, and it is distinct from sibling tools like code_quality or code_review.

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 implies usage for type-checking a subdirectory, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like code_quality or sandbox_validate. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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