gx3_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states the tool 'Reads the project; WRITES one CSV per check plus a JSON summary into the working directory,' which is a critical side-effect warning. It also adds the advisory nature of findings and the dependency on index/xref DBs, giving the agent essential behavioral context beyond the schema.

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 three focused sentences that front-load the primary purpose before covering checks, side effects, and prerequisites. Every clause earns its place; there is no filler or repetition.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description explains the return value ('per-check summary with finding counts by severity') and the file artifacts generated (CSVs and a JSON summary). It also covers prerequisites, the advisory interpretation, and the available check list, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 coverage is already 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds genuine value by enumerating the check names that map to the 'checks' parameter and clarifying that the run spans the whole project. This helps an agent populate 'checks' meaningfully rather than treating it as an opaque string.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run static review checks over the whole project' and says exactly what is returned ('per-check summary with finding counts by severity'). It enumerates the concrete check categories, which clearly differentiates it from siblings like gx3_dead_logic or gx3_interlock_check.

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 gives clear context for using the tool—whole-project static review, advisory findings, and a prerequisite ('Needs the index and xref DBs'). However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, so an agent must infer when to choose gx3_lint over similar static-analysis siblings.

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