proj_lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the override mechanism for naming prefixes and the ability to subset rules, which shapes how an agent configures a run.

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?

Purpose and scope are front-loaded before the rule enumeration, and the parameter notes are appended compactly. The rule list is long and uses terse code fragments (=, SUPER^, VAR_INPUT), but each item conveys a distinct check, so little is wasted.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and read-only annotations cover the safety stance. Scope, parameters, and configurable behavior are all present; the description is complete enough for an agent to call it correctly.

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 carry the parameters. It explains `prefixes` as an override map and `rules` as a subset to run, and implies `name` selects a single object versus the whole project. Only `name` is left implicit, keeping it just shy of full coverage.

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?

States a specific verb (static checks) and a clear resource scope (one object or the whole project), then enumerates the concrete rules run. The rule list is distinctive enough to separate it from peers like proj_validate_xml, but no sibling is named, so it falls short of a 5.

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 scoping sentence ('one object or the whole project') and 'rules= subset to run' imply how to invoke it, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance or pointer to an alternative linter/validator tool. Usage must be inferred.

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