lint_skills

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

Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description explicitly states the tool is read-only, never writes files, never spawns git, and details the exact return payload structure (summary and per-file results). This adds meaningful behavioral context well beyond what annotations provide.

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, front-loading the primary purpose, then usage guidance, then safety/behavior, then return format, and finally parameter usage. Every sentence contributes valuable information with no redundancy or filler.

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 description covers purpose, when to use, safety/read-only behavior, return payload, and parameter semantics. With a simple one-parameter input schema and no output schema, the description provides all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already provides a thorough description for the 'paths' parameter, including the meaning of empty/missing values (full tree scan). The description merely restates this ('Pass 'paths' to lint a subset; omit for a full tree scan') without adding new information. Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb (lint) and a clear resource (skill, rule, command, guideline, and persona markdown files) to state what the tool does. It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the only linting tool among the listed tools, and it mentions 'frontmatter and structural errors' as the focus.

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?

Provides explicit context for when to use the tool ('Use before committing or opening a PR that adds or edits any of those artifacts'), which is strong guidance. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the sibling tools are clearly unrelated in function, so the omission is minor.

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