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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and provides a rich list of what it reports: missing descriptions, destructive tools without confirmation gates, unconstrained parameters, duplicate names, and token cost. It does not explicitly state that the operation is read-only or describe the report format, but the behavioral scope is well disclosed.

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?

Three sentences, front-loaded with purpose, then output details, then usage context. No filler or repetition.

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 single-parameter lint tool with no output schema or annotations, the description adequately explains what the tool inspects and when to use it. It does not cover error behavior or output structure in detail, but the report categories give sufficient completeness.

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% and the single parameter is documented. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by clarifying that the input can be a tools/list response or a bare array of tool objects, which is useful format guidance.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Lint an MCP tool schema') and clearly identifies the input sources. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling lint_skills tool, though the resource domain is distinct.

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?

Provides a clear usage context: 'Use when designing or reviewing an MCP server.' It does not state when not to use it or name alternative tools.

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

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It helpfully discloses the categories of findings (untriggerable descriptions, name mismatches, oversized bodies, broken references, duplicates, near-duplicates), which tells the agent what a run surfaces. It never states that the operation is read-only/non-mutating, nor describes output shape or severity, so key traits remain inferred.

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?

Three sentences, tightly front-loaded: what it lints, what it reports, when to use it. The detection list is long but every item is a distinct, agent-relevant finding category, so nothing is padding.

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 two-parameter diagnostic tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: scope, detection semantics, and trigger conditions are all present. It stops short of saying whether files are modified, how findings are returned, or how to act on them.

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 100%, so both parameters are already documented, and the baseline is 3. The description only echoes the directory scope ('one or more directories'); the 'ignore' rule-code parameter and the SL### format are never mentioned in prose.

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?

Specific verb ('Lint') and resource ('agent SKILL.md files in one or more directories'), plus an enumeration of exactly what problems it detects. It is clearly distinguishable from the sibling lint_mcp_tools by resource (SKILL.md vs MCP tool definitions), but it never names or contrasts with that sibling explicitly.

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?

Gives three concrete triggering situations: auditing a library, pre-publish checks, and diagnosing skills that never get invoked. That is genuine when-to-use guidance. It does not state when NOT to use it or point to lint_mcp_tools for non-skill linting.

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