Validate module file

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine context beyond that by enumerating what the lint inspects, but it says nothing about how failures are reported (error list vs thrown exception) or whether validation is strict or advisory.

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?

A single dense sentence with the core action front-loaded and the check list appended; there is no filler text and every clause carries 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 single-parameter, read-only lint tool with annotations covering safety, the description is nearly sufficient. The one remaining gap is the return format of diagnostics, which is not covered by an output schema or by the description, though the enumerated check categories partially compensate.

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 description coverage is 100% and the single 'file' parameter already documents that it accepts a filename in BuiltinModules/ or Modules/ or a full path. The description adds no further parameter detail, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 names a specific verb (Lint) and resource (a module file), then enumerates the exact checks performed: block balance, required m.* fields, factory-array return, duplicate names vs catalogue. This level of detail cleanly separates it from siblings like reanim_check_module_assets, which validates assets rather than module source structure.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no precondition (e.g. before enabling a module), and no mention of the alternative checks (reanim_check_module_assets, reanim_get_module_info) or when each is appropriate. The usage is only inferable from the tool name and the enumerated checks.

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