list_lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden, and it does well by stating 'No model,' 'Read-only,' and 'Deterministically.' These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the input schema. It does not describe output format or potential performance characteristics, but for a read-only lint check the disclosed behaviors are sufficient.

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 compact, front-loaded with the core behavior, and each sentence earns its place: what it reports, that it uses no model and is read-only, and when to use it. There is no redundant wording or unnecessary detail.

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 only two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, behavior, safety, and usage adequately. It lacks details about the exact return format, but that is a minor gap for a lint/report tool whose scope is clearly enumerated.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds 'stale/expired notes' context, which maps to stale_days, but it does not add new meaning about parameter formats or edge cases beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 states a specific verb ('report'), a clear resource ('vault-hygiene issues'), and enumerates concrete categories (broken links, orphan notes, duplicate identities, etc.). It is not a tautology and is clearly distinct from generic tools, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling list_duplicates, which likely overlaps with 'duplicate identities'.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use to check the memory's structural health or before trusting a possibly-broken link.' This tells the agent when to invoke it. However, it does not mention when not to use it or how to choose between this and related siblings like list_duplicates or list_conflicts.

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