lint_workflow

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and openWorldHint, covering safety and side effects. The description adds useful behavioral context: it returns an empty list when clean, it detects orphan nodes, unconnected inputs, empty list means clean, and it narrows the alignment check to families with a known alignment requirement. No contradiction with annotations.

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 tight, front-loaded, and information-dense. 'Readability/wiring lint:' establishes the purpose, a concise list defines scope, and 'Empty list = clean.' closes with an unambiguous contract. There is no redundant filler.

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 single-parameter read-only lint with an output schema, the description covers the necessary behavioral and scoping details well. The only contextual gap is the undocumented workflow_id parameter semantics, which keeps it from being fully complete.

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 only says workflow_id is a required string, with 0% description coverage. The tool description does not explain what a workflow_id should look like, where to obtain it, or how it is used in the lint. The parameter name provides a minimal hint, but the description fails to compensate for the empty schema description.

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 states the verb and resource precisely: a readability/wiring lint. It then enumerates the specific classes of issues it detects, which strongly separates it from generic validation or diagnostic siblings.

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 clearly scopes the tool to readability and wiring concerns by naming concrete lint categories, so an agent can infer when to use it. It does not explicitly or alternately, but the sibling names like validate_workflow and diagnose_workflow make the distinction fairly obvious.

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