lint_project

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

Although no annotations are provided, the description clearly conveys that the tool is read-only (linting) and lists the checks performed. It does not explicitly state that it does not modify files, but the context implies analysis. It could be improved by confirming no side effects.

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 well-structured: first sentence states purpose, followed by usage context, then a bullet list of checks, and finally the optional parameter. Every sentence adds value, and the information is front-loaded.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool returns (checks with type) and covers all necessary aspects: purpose, when to use, what it checks, and parameter usage. It is 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 provides full coverage (100%) for the single parameter 'project'. The description adds value by explaining the effect of omitting the parameter (scans all projects), which goes beyond the schema's description. Hence, above baseline.

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 defines the tool's purpose: linting project documentation for semantic issues. It lists specific check types (broken links, orphan files, stale markers, stale dates) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like audit_project or validate_docs that focus on other aspects.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool (e.g., check doc quality, find broken links, audit hygiene) and mentions the optional project filter. However, it lacks explicit when-not-to-use guidance or alternatives, which would make it a 5.

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