Lint Intelligent Contract

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, and the description adds detailed behavioral context about the specific issues checked (e.g., comment under runner header, unpinned runners, missing gl.Contract, Python-subset issues). This goes beyond annotations to inform the agent of exact checks.

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-loading the purpose and then listing specifics. Every sentence adds value, no redundant 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?

The description lacks information about the output format (e.g., lint results, warnings, errors, pass/fail). With no output schema, the agent cannot know how to interpret the tool's return value. This is a gap for a linting tool.

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 single parameter 'code' is already well-described in the schema ('Full contract source to lint.'). The tool description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 performs static pre-deploy checks for GenLayer contracts, listing specific issues it catches, which distinguishes it from sibling tools like scaffolding or deployment.

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 implies usage before deployment ('pre-deploy checks'), but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or when not to use it. The context of sibling tools helps, but no direct guidance is given.

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