lint_playtest

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

The annotation readOnlyHint: true already indicates read-only behavior, and the description adds a redundant 'Read-only' but also details the specific checks performed. However, it does not disclose what happens when issues are found (e.g., return format, error handling), which is a gap in behavioral transparency.

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, using two short lines, but the truncated 'TRACE_F…' suggests an incomplete list of checks. It is efficient but loses some completeness due to the cut-off.

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?

With no parameters, a read-only annotation, and no output schema, the description covers purpose and some check details but lacks information on what the tool returns or how it receives its input target. This leaves the description partially incomplete 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 input schema has zero parameters, and the baseline for 0 params is 4. The description does not explain how the target .playtest file or inline script is specified, but since no parameters exist, the tool likely relies on external context; the description adds minimal ambiguity.

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 this is a read-only preflight check on a .playtest file or inline script, listing specific checks it performs (unresolved $alias, deprecated ALIAS, TRACE_F…). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like run_playtest and compile_preflight.

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 term 'preflight' implies usage before running a playtest, but the description does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions or direct comparison to sibling tools, leaving usage partially implied.

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