lint_library

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only, and the description consistently supports that. It adds valuable behavioral nuance: linting runs against each query's cached connection schema when available, which affects result reliability. This goes beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 two tight sentences with no filler. The core action is front-loaded, and the useful 'after refresh_schema' guidance appears at the end. Every word earns its place.

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 what the tool does and when to run it, making it callable. However, there is no output schema and no description of what results are returned, and the only parameter is undocumented. For a simple one-argument tool this is a moderate gap, not a fatal one.

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%, and the description does not mention the min_severity parameter. An agent cannot tell what values are valid (e.g., 'error', 'warning', 'info') or how severity affects lint output. The default 'warning' is the only hint, which is insufficient.

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 states a specific action ('lint every saved query') and resource ('the saved query library'), and distinguishes it from individual linting tools like lint_sql by targeting the entire library. It also states the purpose: catching queries broken by schema changes.

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 gives an explicit trigger condition: 'run it after refresh_schema.' This clearly tells an agent when the tool is appropriate. It does not mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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