lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false; the description usefully adds that fixes may be applied automatically, which is the key behavioral fact. It stops short of saying that fix rewrites files in place, whether it touches only the linted path, or what happens on unfixable findings.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the mode hint is placed where it matters. Its brevity is efficient rather than padded, though it shades into under-specification.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need no explanation, and the tool itself is low complexity. Still, with three undocumented parameters and no statement of default lint scope or side effects of fix mode, an agent lacks enough to call it confidently.

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 carry the load, and it only implies the `fix` flag. `cwd` and `path` (default '.') are never explained, leaving the agent to guess what scope is linted by default.

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?

Names a specific verb (lint) and resource (Python code) plus the underlying engine (ruff), which tells an agent exactly what the tool produces. It does not distinguish itself from the nearby sibling format_code, which is the one likely confusion point.

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 parenthetical '(optionally auto-fix)' hints at two modes but never says when to choose lint with fix versus without, nor when to prefer format_code over lint. No prerequisites, no exclusions.

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