Lint architectural soundness

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds real value: results are advisory (not errors), returned as structured data with `W_*` codes, and the ruleset is switchable via `profile` with a built-in default.

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 dense sentences: the first front-loads what is returned and enumerates representative warning types; the second covers the only non-obvious parameter. No filler.

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 two-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description gives enough to call it correctly: source is ArchLang code, profile picks the ruleset. It stops short of describing result ordering or how warnings are keyed to locations, which would help an agent consume the output.

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 100%, so 3 is the baseline. The description goes beyond the schema by naming concrete profile values ('residential-basic', 'accessibility-advisory') and clarifying that profile selects a ruleset, which the schema only describes generically as 'Advisory ruleset name'.

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?

Clearly states a specific verb and resource: lists advisory architectural-soundness warnings with `W_*` codes, plus concrete examples (unreachable room, windowless bedroom, blocked doorway). The 'advisory' framing implicitly separates it from the validation/score siblings, but no sibling is named explicitly.

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 word 'advisory' hints that this is a non-blocking check, but there is no explicit statement of when to use this versus `validate`, `score`, or the `fix`/`repair` pair that would presumably resolve the warnings. Usage must be inferred from context.

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