arvan_iac_lint_dockerfile

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, confirming non-destructive behavior. The description adds that it uses hadolint and reads from stdin, providing context but not detailing error handling, output format, or any limitations. With annotations covering safety, the description adds some value but not rich behavioral context.

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 one sentence, concise and front-loaded with the tool's purpose. Every word is informative, and there is no extraneous text.

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 simplicity (one parameter, no nested objects, no output schema), the description is nearly complete. It states what the tool does and how input is supplied. However, it omits any mention of the output format (e.g., raw hadolint output, structured results), which could affect agent expectations. For a linting tool, this is a minor 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?

The schema defines a single required 'content' parameter as a string with no description (0% coverage). The description clarifies that the 'content' is the Dockerfile content passed via stdin, adding meaning beyond the field name and indicating how the parameter should be used. It compensates well for the schema's lack of description.

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's purpose: lint a Dockerfile using hadolint, with input from stdin. The verb 'Lint' and resource 'Dockerfile' are specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools like arvan_iac_lint_yaml or arvan_iac_tfsec, which target other file types.

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 for Dockerfile linting and that content is read from stdin, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives, such as other linting tools. No when-not or alternative tools are mentioned.

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