lint_design_anti_patterns

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the responsibility of disclosing behavior. It clearly states what it scans for, but does not describe the output format, whether it returns a report/list/score, or any side effects. There is no contradiction with annotations since none exist.

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 a single concise sentence with no filler words. Every element—resource type and four specific anti-patterns—carries useful information, and the main idea is front-loaded.

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 simple one-parameter scanner with complete schema coverage and no output schema, the description is largely sufficient for an agent to select and invoke it correctly. The only noticeable gap is the unspecified result format, but that does not hinder the call itself.

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?

The single parameter already has a 100% schema description ('HTML, JSX, or Tailwind snippet to analyze'). The tool description adds marginal detail by naming only 'HTML/Tailwind' and omitting JSX, so it does not meaningfully extend what the schema provides. 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 ('Scans') with a clear resource ('HTML/Tailwind') and enumerates concrete anti-patterns ('purple gradients, 3-card monotony, dead buttons, and buzzwords'). It distinguishes itself from the sibling tools, all of which target different audit dimensions (client intake, heading intent, comparison matrix, EEAT graph, archetypes).

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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The usage context is strongly implied by the description and sibling names, but there are no stated exclusions, conditions, or alternative tool references.

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