lint_rtl_code

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return behavior ('Returns each finding with the logical replacement') and the scope of checks. It doesn't explicitly state it is read-only, but 'Check' implies that, and it does not mention any side effects or permissions.

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, zero filler. The first sentence front-loads the purpose and specifics, while the second gives usage guidance and return info. Every word earns its place.

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 simple tool with two params and no output schema, the description adequately covers what it does, what it checks, what it returns, and when to use it. It does not specify the exact structure of findings, but the mention of 'each finding with the logical replacement' is sufficient.

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 coverage is 100% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add additional parameter-level details, but the schema already provides sufficient meaning: code is 'The source to check' and filename's extension determines rules.

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 function: 'Check a snippet of CSS, HTML, JSX or TSX for layout that breaks in right-to-left languages.' It names specific problem categories (physical CSS properties, directional Tailwind utilities, dir problems) and explicitly mentions returning replacements, distinguishing it from sibling tools like lint_rtl_path.

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?

Provides clear usage context: 'Use this before handing RTL-facing markup back to the user.' This gives an explicit scenario, though it does not mention alternatives or when not to use, which would earn a 5.

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