lint_section_v1

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It only states it checks rules and returns results, but does not mention side effects, authorization needs, or whether it is read-only. The minimal description leaves behavior largely implicit.

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, starting with a clear title-like line, then a brief explanation, followed by a structured docstring listing parameters and returns. It is front-loaded and well-organized, but the parameter explanations could be slightly more detailed.

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 has an output schema (passed, issues[], stats) but the description only lists return names without detail. Given the complexity of a validation tool, the description could explain what 'passed' means or how issues are structured. However, the output schema mitigates the need for full description.

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 has zero description coverage, but the description provides Chinese explanations for all parameters (e.g., 'pack_id: 证据包 ID', 'markdown: Agent 写作的 markdown 内容', 'require_citations_per_paragraph: 是否要求每段有引用，默认 False'). This adds meaning beyond the schema's type and defaults, though some details are minimal.

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 that the tool verifies citation compliance in markdown sections. It uses specific verbs ('验证', '检查') and identifies the resource ('Agent 写作的 markdown'). There is a sibling 'lint_review_v1' which may be for full reviews, but the tool name and description indicate it's section-specific.

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. It does not mention prerequisites, scenarios, or when not to use it. The sibling tools suggest other lint operations, but no differentiation is given.

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