lint_code

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must cover behavioral traits. It mentions the ruleset but does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, whether it executes the code, or how results are returned. This lack of safety and return-state info is a significant gap for a tool with no other metadata.

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 exceptionally concise—two short sentences—with no redundant wording or filler. Every word contributes useful information about the purpose and the single parameter.

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 tool's simplicity (one parameter) and the presence of an output schema (so return format need not be explained), the description is mostly complete. It captures the core function and input semantics. Minor omissions like explicit read-only assurance or behavioral disclaimers are not critical here but slightly reduce completeness.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds 'Python source code string to lint,' clarifying that the input is raw source text rather than a file path, which adds value beyond the schema's minimal type/title. However, it omits any constraints, examples, or format details that could further aid usage.

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 (raw Python code string), and the specific ruleset (wemake-python-styleguide). This distinctly separates it from siblings like lint_file and lint_project, which presumably operate on files or projects.

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 phrase 'raw Python code string' implicitly signals that this tool is for ad-hoc code snippets rather than files or projects, aiding selection among siblings. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria, so a small gap remains.

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