veto_lint_rules

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

It goes beyond the annotations by declaring it reads existing project configs and, importantly, that it returns file content without writing it — the agent's main risk (accidentally expecting a written file) is pre-empted. The non-writing claim sits in mild tension with readOnlyHint=false, though not a hard contradiction, since 'it does not write it' refers to the generated config artifact and does not assert zero side effects elsewhere.

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, no filler. The capability is front-loaded and the second sentence earns its place by clarifying the non-mutating return behavior.

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?

With only two required params, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description carries its share: it explains what is read, what is returned, and that nothing is written. The lingering Biome-vs-enum discrepancy is the one unresolved gap an agent could trip over.

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 both parameters are documented, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no syntax or format detail for project_dir ('absolute path to project root' is already in the schema), and its mention of Biome support that the 'tool' enum does not permit is actively unhelpful for parameter selection.

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 and resource: it reads the project's existing lint/format configs and returns a complete ESLint/Prettier/Ruff/Biome configuration matching those conventions. That is concrete and distinguishable from all listed siblings, none of which deal with lint configuration. It stops short of a 5 only because it names 'Biome' as an output family while the schema enum offers just eslint/prettier/ruff, muddying exactly what it produces.

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 scenario is implied (you have an existing project with config conventions and want a matching config), but there is no explicit 'use this when...' statement and no named alternative or exclusion among the ~100 siblings. The one boundary it does state is behavioral, not usage-based: it returns content and does not write the file. Adequate but inferred rather than stated.

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