lint_queries

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes that this is a safe read operation. The description adds meaningful behavioral context by listing the lint categories and stating that each finding carries a concrete suggestion. No contradiction with 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 main action, followed by a concise list of audited concerns. Every sentence carries useful information, and the severity values are included efficiently.

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 read-only tool with three parameters and no output schema, the description omits essential context: what 'source' means, how 'query' interacts with it, and what the overall report shape looks like beyond 'each finding carries a suggestion.' An agent could guess, but not confidently.

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%, so the description must compensate. It only documents min_severity choices (info | warning | error). The required 'source' parameter and optional 'query' parameter are not explained, leaving critical semantics unclear.

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 ('Audit') and resource ('queries'), and enumerates the exact kinds of issues it checks for, such as folding breakers, dead steps, and orphans. This makes the tool's purpose clear and reasonably distinct from siblings like validate_m or format_m.

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 states what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of related tools such as validate_m, diff_queries, or dependency_graph. It does not mention exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative conditions.

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