lint_files

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

Annotations indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent, and open-world. The description confirms persistence of findings and metadata, adding context beyond annotations. However, it does not disclose failure modes, rate limits, or other behavioral details.

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 a single dense paragraph of about 50 words. It front-loads the main purpose but uses jargon (canonicalHelper, Reef, AnswerSurfaceIssue) that may reduce clarity. It is somewhat concise but could be restructured for readability.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, no descriptions, multiple sibling lint tools), the description is incomplete. It does not explain how to use parameters or when to select this tool over alternatives. The output schema exists but the description only vaguely mentions typed findings.

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%, yet the description provides no information about any of the 7 parameters, including the enum for verbosity. The description fails to compensate for the lack of parameter documentation, leaving agents without guidance on how to set inputs.

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 runs diagnostics on indexed files using rule-packs, including canonicalHelper checks and TS-aware diagnostics. It differentiates from siblings by noting it powers the answer loop and review_bundle, but does not explicitly distinguish from other lint tools like biome_diagnostics.

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 does not provide explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to alternative tools. It mentions consistency with answer loop and review_bundle, but lacks practical usage guidance or prerequisites.

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