Lint the SDK integration and policies

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces this with "no browser, no login". It also adds real behavioral context about severity levels (pass/warn/fail), fix messages, and file:line output, and notes it is a static (non-executing) check. However, with an output schema present, restating the return shape is largely duplicative, so the net addition beyond structured data is moderate.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and the read-only/no-login constraints, then the check list, then timing, then return shape. Dense but well ordered; the long enumeration of checks is justified because it defines scope, though the sentence is heavy.

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?

For a two-parameter read-only lint tool, the description covers purpose, scope, sequencing relative to siblings, and severity semantics, while annotations carry the safety profile and the output schema carries the return structure. Nothing an agent needs in order to call this correctly is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (dir, backendHosts) are fully documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description does not explain dir resolution or how backendHosts changes which hosts are flagged; that detail lives only in the 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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Fast static lint of a local project's source or build") and then enumerates exactly what is checked: SDK load/call, loadingStop/gameplayStart, locale handling, no external ads/trackers, no purchase UI, build security, sizes. That enumeration makes it unmistakable next to siblings like gamealia_analyze_project or gamealia_run_autotest.

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?

Gives explicit workflow placement: after gamealia_integrate_sdk and before the slower gamealia_run_autotest, with the speed tradeoff stated ("slower"). An agent knows both the trigger point and which sibling to defer to when a full run is needed.

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