lint_design

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is checked but does not reveal whether the operation is read-only, whether it returns a report, or whether it applies fixes. The term 'lint' implies analysis, but the absence of explicit non-destructive or output expectations leaves ambiguity.

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, efficient sentence with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the enumerated rule categories are immediately useful. Every word earns its place.

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 annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns (e.g., a list of issues, a score), whether it modifies the design, or how it relates to more focused sibling tools. The absence of this context makes it harder for an agent to know what to expect after invoking it.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing concrete rule categories, which likely map to accepted values for the 'rules' parameter, giving the agent a clearer sense of what can be passed. This goes slightly beyond the generic schema description of 'specific rules to check.'

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 a specific action ('Run design lint rules') and enumerates the rule categories (spacing consistency, naming conventions, color usage, font sizes, alignment), making the tool's scope understandable. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling tool, but the breadth of categories implies it is a general lint checker, distinguishing it from narrower tools like check_naming or fix_spacing.

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 guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention what to do if only a specific rule category is needed, nor does it reference siblings like check_naming, color_check_all, or fix_spacing. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name and description alone.

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