lint_review_v1

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

The description indicates the tool validates and returns results (passed, issues, stats), implying a read-only operation. However, without annotations, it does not explicitly state that it is non-destructive or requires specific permissions. The behavioral disclosure is adequate but not thorough.

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 with a clear structure: a one-line purpose statement followed by bullet-point argument descriptions. The mixed language (Chinese title, English args) is slightly distracting but doesn't harm clarity.

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 description covers the tool's input parameters but lacks details about the output structure (e.g., what 'issues' and 'stats' contain). Given no output schema in the input, the description should elaborate on return values for full 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?

The description explains both parameters: pack_ids as a whitelist of allowed evidence pack IDs, and markdown as the full review markdown. This adds significant meaning beyond the schema's type definitions (array of integers, string). It compensates well for the 0% schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: checking the full review for compliance with citation rules. The verb '验证' (verify) and resource '全文合规' (full text compliance) are specific. While it implicitly distinguishes from 'lint_section_v1' (section-level linting), it does not explicitly differentiate from siblings.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'lint_section_v1' or 'draft_lit_review_v1'. It does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or context for invocation.

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