als_lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds real value on top: it operates on a *saved* Live Set (file-level, not the live session), reports in error-first order, and encodes a concrete threshold (+6 dB) that the annotations cannot 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?

One front-loaded sentence: purpose and context first, then the checklist. Every listed item is informative, though the long comma run makes it denser than it needs to be.

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 one-parameter, read-only validation tool with an output schema, the definition is nearly sufficient — checks, context and ordering are all covered, so return values need no explanation. The only remaining hole is the format/expectations of the `path` argument.

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?

There is a single required parameter and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the meaning of `path`. 'A saved Live Set' implies a filesystem path to an .als file, but it never states the expected form, whether relative or absolute, or what happens on a malformed path.

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 and object ('Check a saved Live Set') and then enumerates exactly what is checked: missing samples, uninstalled plug-ins, uncollected files, unrouted tracks, soloed/muted tracks, MIDI without instrument, faders above +6 dB, default names, absent locators. This clearly separates it from siblings like als_summary or als_diff, which report rather than validate.

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?

Gives concrete triggering situations — 'before sharing, mixing or archiving' — which is enough for an agent to know when to reach for it. It stops short of explicitly naming alternatives (e.g. als_summary for inspection only), so it does not get a 5.

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