shortcut_lint

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does not say whether linting is read-only or rewrites the file, what a result looks like (violation list vs pass/fail), or whether the referenced rules can be suppressed; only the rule-ID range hints at behavior.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the rule range is parenthetical and secondary in emphasis.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and an undocumented parameter, the definition leaves key questions open: is it read-only, does it modify or emit anything, what does a failure report look like, and are there prerequisites (e.g., platform or dependency on shortcut_reference rule data).

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% and the single 'path' parameter is undocumented in the schema. The description partially compensates by implying the path must point to an unsigned .shortcut file, but adds no format, relative-vs-absolute, or validation details.

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?

Names a specific verb (lint) and resource (unsigned .shortcut file) plus the rule set (SF000-SF013), which lets an agent distinguish it from shortcut_build and shortcut_sign. It does not explicitly separate itself from the closest sibling, shortcut_inspect, leaving mild ambiguity between 'lint' and 'inspect'.

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 word 'unsigned' implies a precondition (lint before signing), which is useful implicit usage context. However, nothing states when to prefer shortcut_inspect, shortcut_reference, or shortcut_sign instead, and no exclusions are given.

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