thth_lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral burden. It clearly discloses that the operation is read-only and has no side effects ('読むだけ・副作用なし'), which is essential for a lint tool. It does not elaborate on return behavior or error handling, but the core safety profile is well covered.

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?

A single, compact sentence that front-loads the action and scope. No filler or redundancy; every word contributes to understanding the tool's purpose and safety characteristics.

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?

The tool is simple (one parameter, no output schema), so the description covers the main usage. However, it omits what the tool returns (e.g., lint issues, success/failure) and does not clarify what 'format check' entails. Without an output schema, this missing information leaves some ambiguity for an agent deciding whether the tool meets its needs.

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 already documents the 'file' parameter as a path to a queue file (100% coverage). The description adds valuable context by specifying that the file is located under 'docs/sns/queue', which helps the agent construct the correct path. This extra context goes beyond the schema's generic description.

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 specifies a concrete verb and resource: 'format checks one file in docs/sns/queue'. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by its focus on a single file and its read-only nature. The 'docs/sns/queue' path also anchors the tool's scope.

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 linting a queue file but does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings like thth_queue or thth_preview. No alternatives or exclusion conditions are mentioned, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's purpose alone.

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