check_linting

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

With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states it will run ESLint if available, which is a side-effectful action, but does not clarify whether it modifies files (e.g., --fix) or only reports issues. It also does not specify what happens if no linters are installed or what the return format is. The description is honest but incomplete regarding side effects and outcomes.

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, concise sentence that front-loads the core action (detect linters) and then adds the conditional ESLint execution. There is no redundant or unnecessary information, making it highly efficient for an agent to parse.

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?

The tool has no output schema and no annotations, so the description must explain both the action and the expected result. It explains the action but not what the tool returns (e.g., linting errors, a summary) or how an agent should interpret the output. It also lacks details on failure scenarios (e.g., no linters found). This leaves significant gaps for an agent deciding how to proceed after calling the tool.

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 schema covers the single parameter 'cwd' fully with description 'Project root' (100% coverage). The tool description does not add any additional meaning about this parameter, so it does not go beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema carries the semantic weight.

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's purpose: detect installed linters (explicitly naming five) and run ESLint if available. It uses a specific verb (detect, run) and resource (linters, ESLint), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like check_tests or check_security by focusing solely on linting.

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 implies when to use it (when linting checks are needed) but does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives clear context that this tool is for linting, which is sufficient to differentiate from siblings, but lacks explicit routing guidance like 'use check_tests for tests'.

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