lint_for_vendor

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not explain whether the tool is read-only, what side effects exist, or what the output format is. The term 'lint' implies analysis but lacks detail.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the core action and constraint. Each sentence adds value: one states the purpose and allowed vendors, the other gives usage examples. No wasted words.

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?

Despite its simplicity, the tool has no output schema and the description does not explain what the lint result looks like (e.g., a score, a list of issues). The user cannot infer the return format without additional context.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage with clear descriptions. The description adds context for the vendor enum by specifying use cases, but adds no extra meaning for the path parameter beyond its schema 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 states 'Run lint for ONE specific ATS vendor only', with a clear verb and resource. It lists the allowed vendors and uses examples to distinguish from siblings like analyze_cv, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly provides when-to-use examples ('when the user asks something vendor-specific like...'). Does not explicitly state when not to use or name an alternative tool, though the sibling names imply a general CV analysis tool.

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