Lint Scene Refs

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already declares this as read-only; the description repeats that and adds the 'linter' behavior and the path input context. It does not disclose what the linter produces or any edge-case behavior, but given the annotation, this adds moderate value.

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 first sentence is concise and front-loaded, but the second sentence is truncated ('...fil…') and presented as a bare 'path:' line, which undermines the structure. The overall length is appropriate, but the incomplete second line reduces clarity.

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 empty schema, readOnlyHint annotation, and no output schema, the description still does not explain what the linter returns, what it checks, or whether the path is required. Combined with the path/schema mismatch, the context is incomplete for safe invocation.

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 description mentions a 'path' argument with project-relative path semantics, but the input schema has no properties and additionalProperties is false. This mismatch means the agent cannot correctly pass the described path, making the parameter guidance misleading rather than helpful.

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 it is a read-only linter for scene references in DSL scripts or batch commands, giving a specific verb and resource. It is not a tautology, but it does not explicitly contrast with the sibling validate_references, so it stops short of full distinction.

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 gives a clear context: linting scene references in DSL scripts or batch commands. It does not, however, state when to prefer this over validate_references or run_playtest, nor does it mention exclusions, so it lacks explicit when/when-not guidance.

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