lint_yaml

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose side effects, but it only states the action. It does not clarify whether the operation modifies the content, requires authentication (api_key unexplained), or has rate limits. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

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 brief and front-loaded, with no redundant phrases. The args section adds minimal structure. However, it could be better organized with a clear parameter list and explanations.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description omits return value format, list of checks performed, and behavior of the api_key parameter. The tool is under-described for an agent to use confidently without additional context.

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?

Only the 'content' parameter is explained ('YAML string to lint'). The 'api_key' parameter has no description in schema or text, leaving its purpose unclear. With 0% schema coverage, the description partially compensates for one parameter but ignores the other.

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 states it lints YAML content for style issues and best practices, which is a specific verb and resource. It differentiates from sibling tools like validate_yaml (syntax correctness) and convert_yaml_json (format conversion). However, it could be more explicit about the exact style rules checked.

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 guidance on when to use lint over validate or merge. The description lacks context about prerequisites or scenarios where linting is appropriate, leaving the agent without decision support.

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