lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral load — and it does declare 'Read-only', which is the essential safety trait. It also discloses the scope of what is scanned. It stops short of return format details or any rate/auth considerations, but the key trait is covered.

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?

Front-loads the tool's identity and finding categories, then routes to the sibling in one clause. Every sentence earns its place with no padding.

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 read-only diagnostic with no output schema and no annotations, the description supplies the finding categories the agent needs to interpret results plus the read-only guarantee. Slightly incomplete only in not characterizing output shape beyond those categories.

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?

Only one optional parameter with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema already documents the initiative scoping and its cross-initiative default. The description adds nothing about this parameter, which is the correct baseline when the schema does the work.

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+resource ('diagnostic snapshot of graph hygiene') and then enumerates exactly the three finding classes it reports (orphan nodes, unresolved reviews, dangling edges). It also names the sibling `reflect` and how it differs, so an agent can distinguish it without opening either schema.

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?

Explicitly contrasts with the alternative: `reflect` is 'the fuller version' that pairs findings with remedies and adds overdue tasks, stale chains and cortex candidates. This tells the agent when to pick lint versus reflect, though it never states an explicit 'use this when' condition or any exclusions.

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