lint

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden and does well: 'reads every note' explicitly signals a read-only, potentially expensive operation, and the enumerated drift categories disclose what the tool inspects. It does not mention output shape or failure behavior, but the presence of an output schema covers that area.

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 a single sentence that front-loads the core behavior ('reads every note to report drift') before listing checks. The list is long but each item earns its place by clarifying the tool's scope. It is compact and scannable, though slightly dense as a run-on.

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 zero-parameter analysis tool with an output schema, the description covers what the tool operates on and what issues it detects. It lacks an explicit statement of expected cost or side effects, but 'MODERATE' plus 'reads every note' gives a reasonable completeness level for invocation decisions.

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 tool takes no parameters, so there is no semantic burden on the description. The schema is fully covered by virtue of having no properties, and the description adds contextual meaning about what data is scanned rather than needing to explain input formats.

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-resource pair: 'reads every note to report drift' and enumerates the exact categories of drift it detects (broken frontmatter, missing fields, unresolved wikilinks, etc.). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like search or read_file, which retrieve content rather than perform whole-corpus analysis.

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 implies when to use the tool—when you need a whole-note health check—but it does not explicitly state when to prefer it over alternatives or when not to use it. With siblings like search and read_file, an explicit routing note would strengthen the guidance.

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