probe_lint

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

Annotations already indicate readOnly and idempotent behavior, so the description does not need to restate those. It adds useful details about the output structure (stable codes, severities, locations, fix hints) but does not disclose any other behavioral traits such as prerequisites, failure modes, or performance characteristics. The added context is helpful but not rich.

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, focused sentence that front-loads the main action and outcome. Every phrase adds value: it specifies the target, the operation, and the return format. There is no waste or redundancy.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the necessary context: what it does and what the return value contains. Annotations handle safety and idempotency. The tool's simple nature means no additional details are needed for competent use.

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 schema provides 100% coverage for the only parameter (connectionId) with a clear description. The tool description adds no additional parameter information, so it does not exceed the baseline. The schema is sufficient; the description contributes nothing extra here.

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 clearly states the tool's function: run lint rules over tool schemas and return findings. It names the specific action, resource, and output components (codes, severities, locations, fix hints), making it distinct from sibling tools like probe_fuzz or probe_list.

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 does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives among the sibling tools. It neither mentions exclusions nor suggests scenarios where probe_list or probe_report would be more appropriate. Usage context is only implied by the tool's function.

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