lint_all

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a latency characteristic ('Can be slow on big projects'), which is real behavioral context, but says nothing about whether files are modified, whether diagnostics are returned as a report, or how failures are surfaced.

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 short sentences, scope first, caveat second. Every clause earns its place with no filler.

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?

There are no parameters and no output schema, so the description needn't document inputs, but with no annotations it should say more about what the caller gets back (diagnostics list? counts?) and whether the operation is side-effect free. The performance warning is the only behavioral disclosure.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline applies. The description adds useful context by naming the config file and section that determines the file list, which explains the parameter-less behavior.

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?

States a specific verb ('Lint') and scope ('every file in the project filelists'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling `lint` (single-file/less broad). The parenthetical naming the config key (lazyverilog.toml [design]) grounds the resource precisely, but it never explicitly contrasts with the sibling tool.

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 'every file in the project' implies project-wide use and the slow-on-big-projects caveat hints at when to prefer the narrower `lint`, but neither the alternative nor an explicit when-not-to-use condition is stated. Usage is inferable rather than directed.

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