oxlint_diagnostics

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

The description explicitly details behavioral traits: runs local Oxlint executable or script with JSON format, persists ProjectFinding rows, records run status. This adds significant context beyond the annotations which only indicate non-readonly and open world.

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?

Two sentences convey the core purpose and key constraints, but the description is slightly verbose and could be more streamlined while retaining clarity.

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 5 parameters with no schema descriptions and an output schema, the description lacks information about parameter semantics and return values, making it incomplete for effective tool usage.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description only adds meaning for the 'files' parameter (project-relative, JSON format). Other parameters like projectId, projectRef, scriptName, and maxFindings are left undocumented.

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 it is a tool for running Oxlint diagnostics on specific files, persisting findings, and recording status. It distinguishes itself from sibling diagnostic tools by specifying it is file-mode only and not a broad project lint.

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 implies usage context (file-mode, not broad lint) and indicates it is an 'Explicit Reef ingestion tool', but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like eslint_diagnostics or biome_diagnostics.

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