lint_file

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

No annotations exist, so the description must carry the burden. It states 'static analysis' implying no file modification, which is a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose whether file access permissions are needed, if results are cached, or if the tool has side effects beyond reading. Some transparency but not comprehensive.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. Every part adds value.

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, output schema present), the description covers the essential purpose and input. However, it omits context like typical use cases, prerequisite conditions (e.g., file must exist, compilation optional), or explanation of output format (though output schema may provide this). Still, it is largely complete for a lint tool.

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 has 0% description coverage for the 'file_path' parameter. The description adds meaning by specifying 'local Fortran source file', which clarifies the expected input beyond the schema's type 'string'. This compensates for the schema gap, though more detail (e.g., accepted extensions) would be beneficial.

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 performs static analysis on a local Fortran source file and lists specific issues it checks (legacy syntax, implicit typing, missing intents, bad practices). However, it does not differentiate from sibling 'lint_code' which may have a similar scope, so purpose is clear but not fully distinguishing.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., lint_code, modernize_file). It mentions 'local Fortran source file' implying usage scope, but lacks explicit conditions, exclusions, or comparisons to siblings.

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