lint

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses that the tool delegates to native linters/compilers and supports multiple languages, but it does not mention potential side effects, requirements (e.g., installed linters), output format, or whether it is read-only. This is partial disclosure.

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 three sentences, front-loaded with action and resource, and every sentence adds value: purpose, deterministic approach, and supported languages. No redundancy or waste.

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 output schema, the description fails to explain what the tool returns (e.g., diagnostics, exit codes, formatted report). It is adequate for selection but incomplete for understanding results. Given minimal schema and annotations, this is a notable gap.

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?

The schema already covers the parameter completely (100% coverage) with a clear description. The tool description adds language support details (TypeScript, Python, Rust, Go), which clarifies valid values for target_path and thus adds meaning beyond the 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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Run') and resource ('project's native linter/compiler'), and clearly states the types of issues found (unused variables, dead code, type errors, syntax issues). It also distinguishes the tool from siblings by emphasizing deterministic delegation over LLM guessing, and lists supported languages.

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 description implies when to use the tool: whenever deterministic linting/compilation is needed, explicitly contrasting with LLM guessing. This gives clear context for selection, though it does not mention specific alternatives or when not to use it.

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