lint_workspace

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

Annotations already flag readOnly=false and destructive=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable non-obvious behavior: the command is queued, not run synchronously, and progress is observed via two named sibling tools.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, with the primary action and return value front-loaded in the first sentence and the follow-up polling instructions in the second.

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 2-parameter queueing tool with output schema and annotations, the description tells the agent what to do after invocation (poll status/logs). It doesn't detail potential side effects, but the destructiveHint annotation covers that and the description is otherwise sufficient.

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?

Input schema covers both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond identifying the target workspace linguistically, which is acceptable because the schema already documents them.

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 ('Queue'), names the exact resource ('canonical workspace lint command'), and states the return value ('command_id'). It clearly distinguishes this from sibling run/start/build tools by framing it as an asynchronous queued lint operation.

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?

It explains the expected flow: call this to queue lint, then poll get_workspace_command_status and get_workspace_command_logs. It doesn't explicitly state when to prefer alternatives, but the canonical lint scope and polling direction provide clear context.

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