lint_file

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

No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses config walking and layering behavior, which is useful context. Yet it does not explicitly state whether the operation is read-only or what happens on error, leaving some ambiguity about safety and outcomes.

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, front-loaded with the core purpose, and includes a clean Args section. Every sentence adds value with no fluff, and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

The tool is simple (2 parameters, no nested objects), and an output schema exists, so return values don't need to be in the description. The description covers config discovery and parameter semantics well. The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit statement about side effects, but 'lint' generally implies non-destructive.

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 provides only bare titles with no descriptions, leaving the Args section in the description to carry all parameter semantics. It fully explains both path and optional config_path, including layering behavior, which is more than the schema offers.

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 the action (lint), the resource (SQL file on disk), and adds scope by mentioning config discovery. The phrase 'on disk' differentiates from sibling tools like lint_sql, which likely lints SQL strings.

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 usage for linting files on disk and explains config discovery, providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use this tool, though the 'on disk' phrasing naturally separates it from string-based linting.

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