cfg_lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It describes the checks performed but does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or non-destructive. The linting nature implies no side effects, but this is not confirmed.

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 well-structured with a clear purpose sentence, a bullet list of checks, and a parameter section. Every sentence is informative; no fluff or redundant information.

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 the tool's purpose and parameters adequately. Since an output schema exists, it is not required to describe return values. However, it lacks explicit mention of read-only behavior, which would make it fully complete.

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?

Since schema description coverage is 0%, the description compensates by clearly explaining each parameter: config_content is 'The OpenSIPS configuration text to lint', include and exclude are optional rule ID lists with examples. This adds essential meaning beyond 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 'Run the OpenSIPS semantic linter against a configuration' with a specific verb and resource. It then lists specific checks (module dependencies, orphaned modparams, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools like cfg_validate which likely focus on syntax.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as cfg_validate or cfg_explain. The description does not mention prerequisites, when not to use, or refer to sibling tools.

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