lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and open-world, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavior: the exact shape of the result (grade, score, `passed`, findings with line, fix and reference), which an agent cannot get from the annotations and which tells it what it will have to parse. It does not state what happens when both or neither input is supplied.

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 short sentences, zero filler. The action and target come first, the return payload second, and the input constraint last, so the reader gets the essentials in reading order.

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?

With no output schema, the description fills that void by enumerating the return fields, and the schema covers the rest of the parameters. The only missing piece is the edge case of conflicting or absent `content`/`path`, which is minor but leaves an agent guessing on an unconstrained parameter set.

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 the schema already explains `type`, `ignore`, `fail_on` and the size cap. The description still adds meaning beyond it by declaring `content` and `path` mutually exclusive, a constraint the schema does not express (both simply default to null with no oneOf). That is real value on top of an already documented 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?

States a specific verb and two concrete resources ("Lint a Dockerfile or Kubernetes manifest") and immediately scopes the return payload to grade, score, passed and findings. There are no sibling tools to disambiguate from, so the definition is fully self-sufficient for selection.

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 only usage instruction is "Give either `content` or `path`," which is input-shape guidance rather than when-to-use guidance. There are no alternatives to route between, so the gap is small, but no context is given for choosing inline content versus a file path.

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