list_chapel_lint_rules

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

No annotations provided, so the description fully bears the burden. It explicitly details the return format (list of dicts with 'name', 'description', 'is_default'), which is beyond simple output types. No side effects or contradictions.

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 two sentences: first states purpose, second details return fields. Every sentence earns its place, no wasted words, front-loaded with key purpose.

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 no parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the tool does and what it returns. It is complete for a simple listing tool.

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 tool has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter info.

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 'Lists all available Chapel linting rules from chplcheck,' specifying the verb, resource, and source. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'lint_chapel_code' (applies linting) and 'compile_program' (compilation).

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The purpose is implied but no 'when-not-to-use' or comparisons to siblings like 'lint_chapel_code' are provided.

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