lint_project

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that linting is recursive and uses a specific rule set, and mentions the default directory. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what the output looks like, or how errors are handled, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

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 two sentences long, front-loading the main purpose and then documenting the argument. There is no extraneous information, and every sentence contributes value.

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?

This is a simple tool with one optional parameter and an output schema present, so the description need not detail return values. It covers the tool's purpose, scope, and the parameter adequately. Minor gaps like error handling or prerequisites are not critical for this level of complexity.

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 schema only provides a string type with a default for 'directory', while the description explains it is 'Path to the target project directory' and that it defaults to the current directory. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, fully covering the single parameter despite 0% schema description coverage.

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 a specific verb ('Lint') and resource ('an entire Python project directory recursively') and names the rule set (wemake-python-styleguide). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like lint_file and lint_code, which likely target individual files or code snippets.

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 clearly implies its use case: linting a whole project directory recursively. It does not explicitly list alternatives or exclusions, but the scope is well-defined and distinct from the sibling tools, providing enough context for an agent to choose appropriately.

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