lint_note

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral trait of no disk write and specifies the return structure (valid/errors/warnings). This adds meaningful context about what the tool does and does not do, though it omits details like validation strictness or potential side effects beyond the basic read-only nature.

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 front-loaded: it states the purpose in the first sentence, the return format in the second, and usage guidance at the end. No wasted words; every sentence adds value.

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 simple tool with a single parameter and an output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, side effects, return format, and when to use it. The output schema fills in the return structure, so the description is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke this tool correctly.

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 schema only provides 'content' as a string with no further description. The description adds that it is 'markdown content', which provides some semantic context. However, it does not explain validation rules or what constitutes valid content, and with 0% schema description coverage, the description only partially compensates for the lack of parameter detail.

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's purpose with a specific verb ('pre-validate') and resource ('markdown content'), and explicitly notes it does not write to disk. This distinguishes it from sibling write tools like create_note and update_note, as well as read/list/move/delete operations.

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 guidance: 'Use this to check content before calling create_note or update_note.' This clearly indicates when to use the tool, though it does not provide explicit when-not-to-use scenarios beyond the context of writing. The 'without writing it to disk' statement further clarifies the distinction.

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