veto_lint_rules

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

Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds that it modifies files (updates configs), which aligns with the mutation nature. However, it does not disclose whether existing configs are overwritten or merged, nor any side effects like requiring project initialization.

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?

The description is a single sentence that conveys the core functionality without unnecessary words. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the key action.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (two parameters, no output schema), the description is mostly adequate for understanding its purpose. However, it lacks behavioral details (e.g., overwrite vs. merge, error conditions, idempotency) that would help an agent use it safely in a real project.

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?

The input schema covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description mentions the tool enum values implicitly but adds no additional depth beyond enumerating them. It does not clarify how each tool's configuration behavior differs or any dependencies between parameters.

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 clearly states the tool analyzes coding style and auto-generates/updates ESLint/Prettier/Ruff configurations. The verb 'analyzes' and 'auto-generates or updates' along with the specific resource ('configurations') make the purpose understandable, though it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like veto_pre_commit.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites, when not to use it, or trade-offs. Without this, agents may misuse or overlook the tool.

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