lint

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and openWorldHint=false, so the description only needs to add context — and it does: it discloses the Node.js runtime requirement and that project configuration (abaplint.json) is auto-detected. It does not state failure modes when Node.js or config is absent, but the safety/idempotency profile is fully covered by annotations.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the source-vs-path selection rule, then a compact arg list. Every sentence earns its place; the Args block mildly duplicates wording already given in the paragraph above, keeping it just short of a 5.

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 description covers the runtime prerequisite, config discovery, and both input modes. Sufficient for a two-parameter, zero-required tool, with only edge behavior (no Node.js, missing config) left unstated.

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 carries the burden, and it defines both parameters meaningfully: `source` as ABAP source text linted instead of a project, and `path` as a project folder relative to the workspace root. This compensates for the bare schema, though it doesn't mention that `path` defaults to '.' when omitted.

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+resource ('Run abaplint static analysis') and enumerates what it checks (syntax, types, obsolete code, naming). It is distinguishable from most siblings, but the nearest neighbor, check_conventions, is never contrasted, leaving slight ambiguity about which to pick for convention checks.

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?

Clearly states the two operating modes: lint the given `source` text, otherwise lint the project at `path`, using the project's own abaplint.json. That tells an agent when each parameter path applies, but it offers no exclusions or explicit alternatives to the sibling tools.

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