lint_project

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

With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses what checks are performed and their severity levels (warning vs info). It does not cover side effects or permissions, but the behavior is well-explained for a stateless lint operation.

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 concise and well-structured, using bullet points for checks and a clear directive. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 simple input schema (one optional string) and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers all checks, usage guidance, and parameter behavior, leaving no ambiguity.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'project'. The description adds context by explaining that omitting the parameter scans all projects, which enhances understanding beyond the schema's simple 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 defines the tool's purpose: linting project documentation for semantic issues. It lists specific checks (broken links, orphaned files, stale markers, stale dates) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like audit_project by focusing on semantic quality rather than policy compliance.

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., when checking doc quality beyond policy compliance or finding broken links/TODO content. It implies when not to use via contrast with audit_project but does not provide explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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