frontend_lintDesign

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

The description details what patterns are checked and the output format (errors/warnings with line numbers and suggested fixes). However, with no annotations, it lacks transparency about side effects, permissions, or error handling (e.g., invalid paths).

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 concise and well-structured, starting with the purpose, then listing banned patterns in a bulleted list, and ending with the output format. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple parameter and no output schema, the description covers what the tool does, what it checks, and what it returns. It is mostly complete but could mention output format details or error handling for a fully comprehensive view.

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 input schema covers the 'path' parameter with a clear description and example. The tool description adds little beyond the schema itself, as the schema already adequately defines the parameter usage.

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 scans frontend files for banned design patterns, listing specific patterns to check. It distinguishes itself from siblings like frontend_validateAll by focusing exclusively on design pattern violations.

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 explicitly tells when to use the tool ('before finishing any frontend work') and provides a clear context. However, it does not mention when not to use it or suggest alternative tools for broader validation.

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