Lint CAP (cds lint)

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

The description states it runs `cds lint` via the @sap/cds eslint plugin and returns anti-patterns/best-practice warnings. It also discloses the prerequisite that @sap/cds must be installed. With no annotations provided, this covers the fundamental behavior but doesn't reveal details like execution time, output format, or failure modes when the plugin is missing.

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?

Two compact sentences with no filler. Purpose, mechanism, value, and prerequisite are all packed efficiently. Front-loaded with the core purpose and position among validation layers.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's purpose, mechanic, and value. It mentions what results to expect (warnings). Minor gaps: no description of what happens if @sap/cds is missing, and no guidance on severity levels of reported warnings.

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 coverage is 100% and the single projectPath parameter is described as 'CAP project root path.' The description adds context that the tool operates on 'the project' but doesn't add beyond what the schema states. Given high coverage, baseline 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 gives a specific verb ('runs cds lint'), a clear resource (the project), and positions it as a 'second validation layer' that catches things cds compile does not. It's clear, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with sibling cap_validate or ui5_lint to sharpen differentiation.

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?

It clearly states when to use (after compile, as a second validation layer) and the prerequisite (@sap/cds installed). While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives or say 'use cap_validate for X instead,' the positional framing provides adequate guidance.

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