Lint UI5 (@ui5/linter)

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses the dependency precondition (@ui5/linter installed, ui5.yaml present) which is genuinely useful. However, it does not describe the output format, whether it writes any files, whether it's a read-only analysis, or how it handles missing dependencies (error vs graceful degradation). For a read-oriented monitoring tool this is acceptable but not rich.

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 sentences, efficiently packed. It front-loads the core purpose, adds the differentiating capabilities, and closes with prerequisites. Every clause earns its place. Could arguably be trimmed slightly, but the 'Third UI5 validation layer' framing is valuable for sibling differentiation. No redundancy or filler.

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 lint tool with no output schema, this description is reasonably complete. It names prerequisites (external dependency, yaml file), scopes its scope (UI5 2.x migration issues specifically), and notes what it does NOT cover (view validation). The main gap is describing the return format/results structure, but lint tools commonly return a report, so an agent can reasonably infer behavior. Solid for its complexity level.

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 there's only one parameter (appPath). The description adds a small detail — that it's the 'UI5 app root path (where ui5.yaml lives)' — which slightly enriches the schema description by tying it to the yaml requirement. However, it's basically restating the schema's own wording. With single-param at full 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 clearly states this is a linting tool ('runs SAP's official ui5lint') on the app, specifying exactly what it returns ('deprecations and anti-patterns'). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools (cap_lint, ui5_validate_view) by framing itself as the 'Third UI5 validation layer' and explicitly noting it catches things 'that view validation does not catch' (obsolete APIs, deprecated libs, CSP). This provides strong differentiation from sibling lint/validation tools.

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 gives explicit usage context: it's the third layer beyond view validation, targeting UI5 2.x migration readiness. It explicitly names prerequisites ('Requires @ui5/linter installed in the app and a ui5.yaml at the root'), which helps the agent decide when this tool is usable. The contrast with 'view validation' alternatives is clear enough to guide selection among libs.

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