lint_wiki

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does disclose the key side effect that it 'Writes a lint-report.md to the wiki' rather than being a pure read. However, it omits anything about permissions/PIN auth, whether an existing report is overwritten, or resource/time cost.

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: the action and detection scope come first, the write side effect second. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a mutating tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, findings, and the report artifact, but leaves auth requirements and overwrite behavior unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Only one parameter exists and the schema already documents it at 100% coverage ('PIN required if PRIVATE_PIN is set'). The description adds nothing about the pin or auth flow, so the baseline 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 ('run a health check') and resource ('the wiki'), then enumerates exactly what is detected (contradictions, orphans, stale content, knowledge gaps). No sibling tool performs linting, so the agent can identify it unambiguously.

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 explains what the check finds but never says when an agent should run it versus other tools like read_index, search_wiki, or compile_wiki, nor any prerequisites. Usage is only implied by the 'health check' framing.

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