lint_schema_site

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the shape of results: errored files, files with no JSON-LD at all, type counts, common missing properties, per-file problems — a meaningful definition of what counts as an issue. However it omits the safety profile (read-only? no writes?), the truncation behavior implied by limit=500, and whether folder traversal is recursive.

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-loaded single-sentence purpose followed by a compact enumeration of outputs; no filler. The return-value list is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is short and each item adds 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?

An output schema exists, so return values needn't be detailed here, and the description is adequate for the core operation. But for a batch tool with a 500-file default limit and a glob pattern, the absence of any note on recursion, limits, or truncation leaves gaps an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 0% — none of the three parameters (folder, limit, pattern) are documented in the schema, and the description adds nothing about them. 'Every HTML file in a folder' hints at the pattern default but never explains it, nor what limit controls or what happens when it is exceeded.

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 and scope: it runs lint_schema_page over every HTML file in a folder. This immediately distinguishes it from the sibling single-page linter lint_schema_page without requiring the agent to open 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?

The batch-over-folder framing implies when to use it versus the single-page lint_schema_page, but the description never states the choice explicitly or gives exclusions (e.g. don't use on huge trees, use audit_site instead for broader audits). Usage must be inferred from scope.

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