fcs_lint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Screen' implies an inspection/validation action rather than a mutation, and the description names the criteria, but it does not state whether the tool returns violations, throws, or is side-effect free. This leaves the outcome behavior under-specified.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and scope, then a crisp usage trigger. No redundant filler or repetition of schema 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?

The schema fully documents parameters, but there is no output schema and no description of the return/result format or what the caller should do when a prohibition is violated. For a lint/validation tool this is a meaningful gap, though the invocation trigger is clear.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the high-level mapping of string/aggregation/inference to the parameters, not additional syntactic or semantic detail, which matches the baseline 3.

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 uses the specific verb 'Screen' and enumerates the three kinds of inputs (string, aggregation, constitutive inference) and the rule set (five prohibitions). It is not a tautology and gives a concrete idea of the operation, though it does not name a sibling tool to differentiate from, and 'series' negative heuristic' is domain jargon.

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?

'Use before emitting any user-facing claim that touches the FCS layer' is a clear, actionable trigger for when to call this tool. It does not list exclusions or alternatives, so it stops short of a full when-not/alternative statement.

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