electron_lint_security

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true. Description adds context by specifying the analysis type and list of patterns checked, confirming no side effects and providing clear behavioral expectations for an agent.

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?

Single sentence that efficiently communicates the tool's purpose and key details. No filler, front-loaded with main function, and lists specific vulnerabilities.

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 linting tool with no output schema, the description covers the input parameters (via schema) and the specific issues checked. However, it does not hint at the output format (e.g., list of warnings), which could be added for completeness.

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 baseline is 3. Description does not add extra meaning to parameters beyond what the schema already provides (code, fileType). No additional guidance on parameter usage.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs static analysis of Electron code for dangerous patterns, listing specific vulnerabilities. It distinguishes itself from sibling audit/check tools by focusing on linting specific security issues like shell.openExternal, @electron/remote, etc.

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 on when to use this tool versus similar sibling tools like electron_audit_security. The description implies it is for static analysis, but lacks context on prerequisites or when not to use it.

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