lint_against_traffic

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It explains the tool performs a read-only check and flags problematic bindings, which provides good behavioral insight. However, it does not explicitly state that it does not modify state.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the action and outcome with no superfluous words. It is efficiently structured.

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 no parameters and an existing output schema, the description is nearly complete. It could briefly mention the return format (e.g., flagged bindings), but the output schema likely covers that, so this is not a critical gap.

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 input schema has zero parameters, so schema coverage is 100%. The description adds meaning about the tool's operation but does not need to compensate for missing parameter details. Baseline 4 is appropriate.

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 checks buffer valuePaths against fields from the last probe and flags silent data loss due to wrong paths/namespaces. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes from sibling linters like 'lint_dynamic_traffic'.

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 for debugging silent data loss but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'validate_buffer' or 'check_sources'. No exclusions or context for optimal use are given.

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