run_checks

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions smart SHA-256 caching and speed, which is helpful, but it does not state whether the operation is read-only, whether it modifies files, or what side effects it might have. For a validation pipeline, safety may be inferred, but it is not explicit, leaving a gap.

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-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose, then adds caching detail and usage context without fluff. Every part earns its place, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

The tool runs a complex pipeline with multiple check types, yet the description does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., pass/fail status, report, exit codes). It also omits details about the 'custom steps.' Given there is no output schema, the agent is left guessing about the return format, which is a notable gap.

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 already documents both parameters (bypass_cache and project_path) with descriptions, and coverage is 100%. The description adds no parameter-specific information. Per the rubric, with high schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate, and the description does not elevate it.

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 runs the full pre-flight validation pipeline, listing tests, type-checking, lints, and custom steps. The verb 'run' and resource 'pipeline' are specific, and the word 'full' distinguishes it from narrower sibling tools like run_tests or run_lint. This gives an agent a precise idea of what the tool does.

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 explicitly provides a usage context: 'Use this before committing code.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when *not* to use it or name alternatives (e.g., run_staged_checks or run_security_audit), so it lacks the full when/when-not guidance needed for a 5.

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