paper_lint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful behavioral trait: output is truncated to `max_issues` while the counts remain complete, which tells the agent how to interpret partial results. It omits much else — that this is a read-only diagnostic, what document/scope is linted when no `name` is supplied, and roughly what the issues look like.

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?

Two sentences, zero filler: the check list comes first and the truncation semantics second. Every clause carries information the agent can act on.

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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description should clarify target selection and result shape. It leaves `name` undefined and never says what an issue record contains or what scope is linted by default, so an agent could call it with the wrong target.

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 0%, so the description must compensate and only partly does. `max_issues` is well explained (cap on returned issues, counts unaffected), but the `name` parameter is never mentioned at all, leaving the agent guessing whether it targets a paper, a section, or the active corpus.

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 names a specific operation (lint) and enumerates the exact checks performed: placeholders, heading hierarchy, missing sections, paragraph/sentence length, abstract length, undefined citations, readability. That is far more specific than the bare name. It stops short of differentiating itself from the sibling paper_doctor, which plausibly overlaps, so an agent cannot be fully sure which to pick without opening both.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative despite paper_doctor and paper_bib_check being close siblings. The agent must infer that this is the thing to run after writing content, but nothing in the text says so.

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