papercanvas_lint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose the key traits: it is read-only, it returns findings with rule_id/severity/object_id, and 'error' severity is blocking. It omits whether checks are configurable beyond font size or how findings are ordered/limited, keeping it from 5.

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?

Three dense sentences, front-loaded with the action and rule list, then result shape, then severity semantics and safety flag. Nothing is padded and every clause adds information.

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 read-only validator with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the rule set, return fields, severity interpretation, and safety profile well. The only meaningful gap is parameter explanation, which matters given 0% schema coverage.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the two parameters, but it never mentions `path` or `min_font_size_pt` explicitly. The font-size threshold can only be weakly inferred from the 'font size' rule name, leaving both parameters effectively undocumented.

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 ('run quality checks') and resource (canvas), and enumerates the eight checks so the agent knows exactly what is validated. It does not differentiate from sibling papercanvas_inspect, which likely overlaps in the 'structure' area, so it stops short of a 5.

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?

Implies usage through 'severity 'error' means fix before delivering', which tells the agent what to do with results but not when to call lint versus inspect/render. No explicit when-to-use or prerequisite guidance is given.

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