Lint Notebook

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full load. It usefully discloses that this is the same engine behind 'marimo check' and enumerates breaking/runtime/formatting categories, which conveys the nature of the output. But it never states whether the tool only reports or also mutates the notebook, nor that an active session/server is required — relevant given sibling set_active_session and the optional server_url/session_id params.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action in the first sentence, followed by a compact categorized bullet list. No filler, though the 'marimo check' aside is slightly redundant with the engine statement.

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?

An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is unnecessary, and the three issue categories give a good sense of what comes back. What's missing is the read-vs-write nature of the operation and session requirements, which the schema only partly covers.

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 both optional params (server_url, session_id) are already fully documented in the schema, including their fallback to bound values. Baseline 3 applies; the description adds nothing about parameters.

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+resource ('Lint a marimo notebook') and enumerates the three issue classes it detects. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the sibling get_errors, which an agent might reasonably confuse with linting output.

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?

There is no guidance on when to lint versus when to call get_errors, run_cell, or any other diagnostic sibling, and no stated preconditions. The 'marimo check' reference gives provenance but not a usage condition.

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