megalinter_list_flavors

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavioral traits. It only indicates that the tool lists 'commonly used' flavors, implying a filtering behavior. No information about authentication, rate limits, or return format is given, which is a gap for a read operation.

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 a single, concise sentence that directly states the tool's function. No superfluous words, and it is appropriately front-loaded for quick understanding.

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 tool has no parameters and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. However, not specifying the return format (e.g., list of strings vs objects) slightly reduces completeness. The qualifier 'commonly used' also lacks precise definition.

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 input schema has no parameters, and schema description coverage is 100%. The description adds no additional parameter info, but the baseline score is 3 as per instructions when coverage is high.

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 'List commonly used MegaLinter flavors' clearly states the action (list) and resource (flavors), distinguishing it from sibling tools that list linters or reporters. The qualifier 'commonly used' adds a slight ambiguity but still conveys the purpose effectively.

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 provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like `megalinter_get_linters`. However, the name and sibling context imply use for listing flavors, which is adequate but not comprehensive.

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