bowire.lint

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

With no annotations the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses the rule-honoring behavior (.bowire/rules.json), the categories of findings, severities, and the exact return shape, but it never states that the operation is read-only/non-destructive or whether invocation has side effects on the workspace.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, and the subsequent clauses (rule source, finding categories, return shape) all earn their place. It is dense and slightly long but free of waste.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description compensates by spelling out the return shape ({ findings, summary }), and the parameter set is fully covered by the schema. The main omission is the safety/side-effect profile, which is minor for a lint operation.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema and the description adds no syntax or format detail beyond them. Baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 (lint) and resource (API surface) and pins its identity by referencing the exact CLI command and workbench rail using the same rules. An agent can tell it apart from a generic discovery tool like bowire.discover because the linting behavior is named explicitly.

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 design-time framing and the mention of the .bowire/rules.json ruleset imply when this tool is appropriate, but there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives guidance and no contrast with siblings such as bowire.discover or bowire.contract.matrix. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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