lint_code

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

No annotations are provided. The description only mentions the return shape ({ok, parse_error, findings}) but omits any behavioral traits such as whether it is read-only, required permissions, side effects, or rate limits. The burden is on the description to disclose such behaviors, and it fails to do so.

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 very short (one sentence plus return type), which is concise. However, it is too brief, missing important details. Every sentence does earn its place, but the description could be more informative without becoming verbose.

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?

With two parameters (one optional), no parameter descriptions, no annotations, and an output schema only hinted at in the description, the description is critically incomplete. It does not explain what 'leakage patterns' means, how to interpret the return, or any context about the tool's behavior. This is insufficient for proper tool selection and use.

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%, and the description does not elaborate on the parameters. 'code' is implied as the source string, but 'filename' is optional and has no explanation. The description provides no additional meaning beyond what the schema gives, which is minimal.

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 scans a source string for leakage patterns, which is a specific verb+resource combination. It implicitly distinguishes from siblings like lint_file and lint_paths that operate on files or paths. However, it does not explicitly contrast with these siblings.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description only implies it is for scanning a source string, but does not mention when to choose lint_code over lint_file or lint_paths, nor any prerequisites or exclusions.

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