lint_note

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

The description discloses the return structure including the possibility of schema being null, but with no annotations, it fails to mention side effects (none expected), error conditions, or performance implications. It adds value but is not comprehensive.

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 two sentences, front-loads the purpose, and is free of unnecessary words. Every part 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 output schema and the tool's complexity (single parameter, validation operation), the description covers the return structure but omits context like error handling, path validation, or schema resolution mechanics. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 description simply mentions to pass `{ path }`, which repeats the schema. With 100% schema coverage, the bar is higher; additional details like path format or constraints would improve it.

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 the tool validates a note against its resolved schema, which is specific and actionable. However, it does not differentiate from sibling tools like validate_all or validate_area that perform similar but scoped validations.

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 on when to use lint_note versus alternatives, no prerequisites (e.g., path must exist), and no context on when it should not be used.

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