wiki_get_lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It implies the tool is a read-only report by stating it returns health findings and warns not to delete entries. Although it doesn't explicitly declare read-only or discuss rate limits/auth, the context makes the behavior clear enough.

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 efficient with two paragraphs: first defines the purpose, second gives usage advice. It includes a minor internal reference ('DF-312') that is not essential, but overall it is well-structured and front-loaded. Nearly every sentence adds value.

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 the tool has two parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the main use cases and constraints. It explains the three issue categories and provides resolution guidance. However, it lacks details on the output format and could better explain the projectId parameter.

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 only 50% (staleDays has a description, projectId does not). The description clarifies that 'stale' entries are 'release-stage entries older than N days', connecting to staleDays, but does not explain projectId. This adds some value but not enough to fully compensate for the missing parameter description.

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 returns a health report of the wiki covering three specific categories: stale, orphan, and contradictions. It uses specific verbs ('get lint') and distinguishes from sibling tools like wiki_get_index or wiki_get_page.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use periodically (or before a major refactor) to keep the wiki clean.' It also advises against deleting entries and directs the user to a specific skill for resolving findings, effectively telling when and how to use the tool.

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