lint_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does reasonably well: '静态' scanning plus '返回违规清单（含修复建议）' makes clear the operation is a non-mutating analysis that returns a violation list with fix suggestions. It omits whether the scan is recursive, whether it requires dependency installation or a build step, and roughly how costly it is, which are the remaining gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the checklist. The check enumeration is long but each item conveys what will be reported, so it earns its place; the phrasing is dense rather than padded.

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?

No output schema exists, and the description compensates by stating the return is a violation list including remediation advice. Combined with a fully documented single parameter, an agent has enough to invoke it correctly; missing are scan scope/depth and expected runtime or failure modes.

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 100% and the single parameter is well documented as an absolute project root path. The description adds only a light qualifier — that the directory must be a uni-app/WeChat mini-program project — which meaningfully constrains what path is valid beyond the schema's generic 'project root absolute path'.

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 gives a specific verb (静态护栏扫描 / static guardrail scan) and resource (uni-app/微信小程序 project directory), then enumerates exactly what classes of violations are checked (rpx inline styles, WXSS universal/pseudo-class selectors, defineProps generics, subpackage flags, animation fill-mode, secret/intranet leakage). It is unmistakably distinct from siblings like list_rules or get_rules, which are rule-catalog tools rather than scanners.

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?

"发版/开源前必跑" gives a concrete trigger condition for invoking the tool, which is the key routing signal an agent needs. It doesn't name exclusions or alternatives, but the sibling tools are unrelated catalog/submission utilities, so no disambiguation is really required.

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