memshelf_lint_digest

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds value beyond them by explaining that `strict` escalates warnings to failures and that this is the identical validator used at shelf time, though 'writing nothing' partly restates the readOnly annotation.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the core action and the writing-nothing guarantee, followed by the strict-mode modifier. No filler and nothing redundant.

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 annotations cover the safety profile. The description supplies the purpose, the timing, and the strict behavior, though it could have clarified the digest parameter 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?

Schema description coverage is reported as 0%, so the description should carry the load. It explains the `strict` behavior and its effect (warnings become failures), but says nothing about the `digest` parameter itself, leaving its semantics to the schema alone.

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?

States a specific verb (check/lint), resource (a digest), and scope (against the contract, while being written), and explicitly links itself to the sibling `memshelf_shelve` by noting it is the same validator that tool runs. An agent can distinguish this from `memshelf_shelve` without opening either schema.

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?

It clearly frames the use case — validating a digest in-progress before it is shelved — and names the related tool it mirrors. It stops short of an explicit when-not or a statement of what to call instead once the digest is finalized, but the timing condition is well conveyed.

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