lint_check

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

Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that tools not on PATH are skipped with a 'reason' field rather than raised as errors, and that each tool maps to the same Finding shape used by the built-in analyzer. However, it does not explicitly state that the tool is read-only or lacks side effects, which would be beneficial.

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 two sentences long, front-loaded with the primary action and output. It is concise with no wasted words, while still conveying critical behavioral details about skipped tools.

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 has 3 parameters, all with defaults, and an output schema exists (though not shown). The description covers the core functionality and the important edge case of missing tools. It could be more complete by clarifying the relationship to sibling tools, but overall it is adequate.

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 coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to add much. The schema already documents all three parameters (path, runs, timeout_seconds) with descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the output structure (Finding shape with 'source' field) but does not elaborate on parameter behavior beyond the schema.

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 verb 'Run' and the resource 'external linter(s) and test runner', and specifies the output 'return findings + summary'. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'analyze_path' or 'health_check' which likely serve different purposes.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives. It notes that missing tools are skipped, but no direct comparison to siblings like 'analyze_path' or 'doctor_tool' is provided. Usage context is implied but not clearly delineated.

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