lint_rtl_path

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

With no annotations provided, the description takes on transparency duties. It discloses the skip behavior for node_modules and build output, which is useful. However, it does not explicitly confirm read-only status, permissions, or what output/exit status is returned, leaving some ambiguity.

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?

One concise sentence that is front-loaded with the primary action and resource, and includes a key detail (skipping node_modules/build output) without any redundant text.

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 one-parameter check tool, the description covers the purpose and one key behavior. However, without an output schema or annotations, it leaves unspecified what the result looks like, which is a notable gap for an agent to interpret the outcome.

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 already describes 'path' as a file or directory path with 100% coverage. The description reiterates this scope without adding additional parameter syntax, constraints, or examples, so baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the action ('Check') and the resource ('file or a whole directory on disk') for right-to-left layout problems. It distinguishes from sibling tools by emphasizing disk paths, setting it apart from code-based linting or direction detection.

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 context that the tool operates on filesystem paths and skips node_modules/build output, implying usage for local project directories. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this over lint_rtl_code or other siblings, nor mention exclusions.

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