emet_page_lint

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

Beyond the annotations already declaring readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, the description adds meaningful behavior: it never edits a record, it is owner-only, and its findings cover contradictions, superseded records, missing sources, duplicates, broken links, and stale statuses. That gives the agent a clear operational picture beyond the structured safety hints.

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 front-loads the purpose and then packs in scope, behavior, finding categories, ownership, and the omit-area rule without filler. Every sentence contributes either selection guidance or behavioral context.

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 one-parameter read-only lint tool with no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it explains what is linted, what findings are produced, that it is owner-only, and how to lint all areas. It does not describe the result shape or grouping of findings, which is the main remaining gap.

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%, and the only parameter's meaning is already fully documented in the schema as an optional area slug. The description repeats 'Omit area to lint every area' but adds no syntax, format, or edge-case semantics 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Flag problems in topic pages and the records they read.' It also scopes the tool by listing the finding classes and by noting that it builds on emet_gaps classifiers, which helps distinguish it from lower-level inspection or fix tools.

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 clearly indicates the linting use case and explicitly routes remediation to other tools: 'A fix is a person's revise_memory, retire_doc, or accept_nonconformance.' It also states 'Owner only' and 'Omit area to lint every area,' but it does not explicitly compare itself with the closest lint-adjacent sibling such as emet_gaps or validate_doc.

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