lint_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool 'statically analyzes' but does not clarify that it is read-only, what permissions are needed, or what happens on error. The output schema covers return values but behavior beyond analysis is unspecified.

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?

A single, efficient sentence that covers the tool's purpose with no wasted words. It is front-loaded and earns its place.

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?

The tool has one parameter and an output schema exists. The description covers what the tool does and what it checks for, but could mention read-only nature and typical output format. It is adequate for the tool's simplicity.

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 single parameter 'code' has no schema description (0% coverage), but the description explains it is 'a string of Fortran code' and lists what it checks for. This adds significant meaning beyond the minimal 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 clearly states it statically analyzes a string of Fortran code for legacy syntax, implicit typing, missing intents, and bad practices. This specific verb+resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like lint_file, which operates on files.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool over alternatives. Given many sibling tools (e.g., lint_file, audit_implicit_interfaces), explicit usage context is missing.

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