gdlint

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

没有任何 annotations，描述承担了全部行为披露责任。但描述只说了“检查”，未说明是否只读、是否修改文件、输出格式、退出码、错误处理等行为。对于无 annotation 的工具，这种透明度明显不足。

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?

描述只有一句话，非常简短且没有冗余，但考虑到工具无 annotations、无输出 schema，这样的篇幅显得过于单薄，不足以支撑正确调用，属于“简洁但不够充分”。

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?

工具包含 3 个参数、无 annotations、无输出 schema，描述却只有一个动作说明，缺少使用场景、行为约束和结果说明。上下文信息不足以让 agent 在没有额外知识的情况下正确判断调用后果。

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?

input schema 对三个参数的描述覆盖率为 100%，已经说明了 project、file 的绝对路径要求以及 all 的默认值。描述本身没有补充参数含义，因此基于 schema 完整覆盖给予基线 3 分。

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?

描述包含了明确的动词和资源：“运行 gdlint 检查 GDScript 文件”，表明这是一个 lint 检查操作。虽然未明确与其他兄弟工具区分，但 gdlint 的专有名称和“检查”语义足以让 agent 初步判断用途。

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?

描述没有说明何时使用 gdlint 而不是其他兄弟工具（如 godot_check_all、godot_get_errors），也没有给出选择条件或排除场景。仅从语义上暗示用于 GDScript 文件检查，缺乏明确的工具路由指导。

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