lint_chapel_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool uses chplcheck, returns warnings and fixed code, and provides a dictionary with keys like warnings, fixed_code, error, and stats. It does not mention destructive behavior, which is appropriate for linting, but could be more explicit about side effects or safety.

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 concise and well-structured. It begins with a one-line purpose, followed by an 'Args:' list and a 'Returns:' section. Every sentence adds value, and the format is front-loaded with the most important information.

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?

Given the lack of output schema, the description includes a comprehensive list of return values (warnings, fixed_code, error, stats). All four parameters are described, with one required. The description provides enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's inputs and outputs completely.

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. It does so excellently by explaining each parameter: 'program_text' is the Chapel code to lint, 'program_name' is the name of the program file, 'fix' indicates whether to apply automatic fixes, and 'custom_rules' is a list of specific rules. This adds crucial meaning beyond the schema's types and defaults.

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 clearly states it lints Chapel code using chplcheck and returns warnings and fixed code. The verb 'Lints' and resource 'Chapel code' are specific. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'compile_program', 'get_primer', 'list_chapel_lint_rules', and 'list_primers' by focusing on linting.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It provides parameter details but lacks guidance on context, such as when to lint versus compile. The sibling tools are mentioned but not compared, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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