lint_sql

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, non-destructive, and idempotent behavior, which the description does not contradict. The description adds value by specifying the linting scope ('all 10 GoSQLX style rules'), which is not covered by annotations, providing useful context about what the tool checks. However, it does not detail output format or error handling.

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, efficient sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and every part earns its place by specifying the action, target, and rules involved.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (simple linting with one parameter), rich annotations (covering safety and behavior), and no output schema, the description is mostly complete. It clearly defines the linting scope but could benefit from mentioning output format or error types, though annotations help mitigate this gap.

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%, with the parameter 'sql' documented as 'The SQL string to lint.' The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond this, as it does not explain syntax or format requirements. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: 'Lint SQL against all 10 GoSQLX style rules (L001–L010).' It specifies the verb ('lint'), resource ('SQL'), and scope ('all 10 GoSQLX style rules'), distinguishing it from siblings like format_sql or validate_sql by focusing on style rule checking.

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 implies usage for SQL style checking but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like validate_sql or security_scan. It provides context (linting against specific rules) but lacks explicit guidance on exclusions or comparisons with sibling tools.

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