Lint addon Lua against a game client

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It details the categories of problems detected (removed/moved APIs, unknown events, taint, performance traps), offering substantive insight into behavior. It does not mention output format or side effects, but for a static analysis tool this is adequate.

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 core purpose. Every sentence contributes value: the first defines the tool and its scope, the second specifies when to run it. No wasted words.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides sufficient context: what it analyzes, what categories of issues it finds, and when to use it. It lacks explicit return-format details, but the description is otherwise complete and actionable.

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 100%, so each parameter is already documented. The description does not add additional parameter-level meaning, but that is acceptable given the high schema coverage. The baseline of 3 applies.

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 uses a specific verb ('Analyse') and identifies the resource ('addon Lua'), and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools by focusing on WoW-specific linting (removed APIs, events, taint, performance traps). It fully explains what the tool does.

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 explicit guidance on when to use the tool ('Run this on any addon Lua before shipping it, and whenever porting between clients'). It does not name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use exclusions, but the context is clear enough for an agent to decide.

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