lint_project

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

Annotations are absent, so the description must fully disclose behavioral traits. It only covers timeout and background execution behavior, but omits critical details: whether the tool modifies files, required dependencies, side effects, or resource usage. Minimal transparency beyond timing.

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 somewhat verbose and repetitive (e.g., repeats parameter names). The opening line is awkward and not focused on purpose. It could be more concise and better structured by stating the tool's function first before diving into timing details.

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 has 8 parameters, no schema descriptions, and a complex execution model, the description is insufficiently complete. It does not explain what linting involves, what output to expect (though output schema exists but is not described), or prerequisites. The focus on timing overshadows other essential context.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the meaning of timing parameters (expected_runtime_seconds, timeout_seconds, etc.) and on_timeout options well, but does not clarify path, command, or background parameters. Partial coverage improves understanding but leaves gaps.

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 name 'lint_project' suggests linting a project, but the description does not explicitly state what the tool does (e.g., runs a linter, checks code style). It focuses on execution timing rather than the core purpose. The purpose is vague and not clearly distinct from sibling tools like typecheck_project.

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 provides no guidance on when to use lint_project versus alternatives like typecheck_project or run_tests. It only discusses timing parameter choices, not contextual usage scenarios. No when-to-use or when-not-to-use information is given.

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