build.run_lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The prefix '[approval required][workspace write][network][risk:dangerous]' explicitly discloses side effects, permissions, and risk beyond the minimal action statement. It stops short of explaining failure behavior, but this is strong transparency for a simple run command.

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 clause with compact risk tags and no filler. It is front-loaded with behavioral warnings and states the action and scope immediately.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the action, target platforms, and side-effect profile. It remains incomplete because it provides no usage heuristics, no guidance about omitted 'kind', and no indication of what the command returns or how lint failures are signaled.

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 only parameter, 'kind', has an enum but no schema description. The description's phrase 'for Flutter, React Native, or Android' mirrors the enum values and clarifies that kind maps to target framework, adding some meaning, but it does not explain default behavior when the optional parameter is omitted.

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 clear action ('Run lint/static analysis') with an explicit resource scope ('for Flutter, React Native, or Android'). This distinguishes it from siblings like build.run_unit_tests and build.build_debug_apk without ambiguity.

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?

There is no guidance on when to prefer run_lint over sibling build tools, nor any when-not-to-use guidance. The platform list is useful scope information, but the agent is left to infer when linting is appropriate.

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