lint

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior; the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond that, including finding structure, severity semantics, conformant/ok definitions, baseline filtering, git-ref scoping, and default directory behavior. This is unusually transparent for a read-only linting operation.

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 dense and semicolon-heavy, with finding fields and parameter explanations packed into run-on fragments. It is not bloated, but the lack of front-loaded structure or grouping makes it harder to scan than necessary.

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 9-parameter tool with no schema descriptions and no output schema, the description is mostly complete: it explains purpose, usage, finding shape, and eight of nine parameters. It leaves `offset` unexplained and does not state the default `limit` value, but an agent can still call the 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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, and it largely does: `all`, `bundle`, `file`/`files`, `limit=0`, `baseline`, `since`, and `scope` are all explained. The `offset` parameter is omitted, which is a meaningful gap given the pagination behavior.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: "Check the bundle against OKF v0.2." It distinguishes the linting role from the sibling `fix` tool by noting that fixable findings can be cleared with `fix`, but it does not explicitly contrast with `verify` or `status`.

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?

Gives clear timing guidance: "Run it before and after any change, and in CI." It also points to `fix` for fixable findings, but does not state when to prefer alternatives such as `verify` or `status`.

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