design_lint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one genuinely useful trait: 'Writes nothing to the project' tells the agent this is a non-mutating read. Beyond that it is silent on what a run produces (findings? pass/fail?), whether it needs configuration, and how the two engines combine.

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?

Two compact sentences, front-loaded with the core action and with no filler. The only inefficiency is the opaque 'AstronDesign precedence' clause, which occupies space without conveying meaning to an outside agent.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, two of them required, a required enum, no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema descriptions, the definition is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what surface values mean or what a lint run returns, so it is not complete enough to call confidently.

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% for five parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. 'Source files' loosely maps to paths and 'impeccable and taste rules' to engines, but the required surface enum (persuade/operate/read/experience), allow, and design_md are never explained in either place.

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 and resource: static UI design lint of source files, with the two rule engines (impeccable, taste) named. That distinguishes it from siblings like design_render or design_inspect, though the phrase 'resolved by AstronDesign precedence' is unexplained jargon that adds no clarity.

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 says what it is but never when to pick it over design_inspect or design_guide, nor what preconditions exist (e.g., a design spec must already exist). No exclusions or alternative routing are given, leaving usage entirely to inference.

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