lint_rtl_path

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a useful behavioral detail: skipping node_modules and build output. However, it does not mention the return format, error handling, or whether the operation is read-only (though 'check' implies it).

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 two sentences long: the first conveys the core purpose, the second adds a key behavioral note about skipping node_modules/build. No fluff, clearly front-loaded.

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 low-complexity read-only check tool with no output schema, the description covers the essential aspects: purpose, target, and a significant behavioral exception. It omits the return format but that is a minor gap for this simple tool. Overall it is sufficiently complete.

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%, and the schema already explains both parameters clearly (path and baseDir with enum). The description adds no extra semantic information beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 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 states the verb ('Check') and the resource ('a file or a whole directory on disk'), and it specifies the focus on right-to-left layout problems. While it distinguishes from sibling tools by scope (on disk vs. code), it does not explicitly name the alternatives.

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 phrase 'on disk' implies this is for files/directories rather than code snippets, but there is no explicit statement about when to use this tool versus siblings like lint_rtl_code. No exclusions or alternative guidance are provided.

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