Lint de post de Product Hunt contra PRODUCTHUNT.md

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

The description discloses that prohibited terms are enforced on the entire post without exceptions, and explains the real-world consequence (Product Hunt removes the post), adding behavioral context beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations. It does not contradict the annotations.

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 compact and front-loaded with the primary purpose, followed by differentiation, parameter list, and return value. The Args section is somewhat redundant with the schema, but it is the only minor 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?

The description covers purpose, usage, differences from a sibling, parameters, and return behavior ('PASS'/'FAIL' with structuredContent). Combined with annotations and an existing output schema, it provides sufficient context for the agent to decide and invoke correctly. It could mention edge cases like invalid config, but that is not critical for basic usage.

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?

All 4 parameters have schema descriptions (100% coverage), so the input schema already provides clear semantics. The description's Args section briefly reiterates the parameters but adds no new meaning beyond the schema, e.g., 'imageCount' is already described as checking gallery.min_images in the schema.

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 validates a Product Hunt tagline and description against hard limits in PRODUCTHUNT.md, using a specific verb ('Valida'). It explicitly contrasts with lint_web_content, distinguishing the tool's scope (whole post vs short surface).

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 provides an explicit usage guideline by distinguishing this tool from lint_web_content: it explains that prohibited terms are blocked across the entire post, not just a short surface, which tells the agent when this tool is appropriate over the sibling. However, it does not explicitly address alternatives like lint_linkedin_content, so it is a bit incomplete.

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