lint_skills

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.