kg_lint

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It lists what is checked but does not state whether the tool is read-only, modifies state, requires prerequisites, or has side effects. The lack of behavioral disclosure is 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?

A single sentence that front-loads the purpose and lists specific checks. Every word earns its place; no extraneous content.

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 two parameters, no annotations, but an output schema exists, the description adequately explains what the tool does and what it checks. However, it misses details like output format or whether initialization is required, but overall it is fairly complete for a lint tool.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It mentions 'optionally unowned services,' which maps to check_owners, but does not explain graph_path. Some meaning is added for one parameter, but graph_path remains undefined.

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 it performs an 'Architecture health check' and lists specific issues (cycles, single points of failure, orphans, dangling references, unowned services). This verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like kg_add_service or kg_render.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool vs. alternatives like kg_drift or kg_diff. The description only implies usage for architecture health checking, but does not provide criteria or exclusions.

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