lint_repo

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does well by disclosing that this is a static, fast, API-based or offline local operation, and that it does not touch run history. It does not mention return format or side effects, but 'static lint' implies read-only behavior and the description is otherwise transparent.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and scope, then lists concrete rules, then explains parameters and defaults. It is somewhat long but every sentence contributes useful information; the rule enumeration is valuable for at-a-glance understanding.

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 two-option, zero-required-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description provides enough context to invoke it correctly: what it checks, how to target remote vs local, and what the default behavior is. It does not describe the result format, but that is not essential for selection and prior to a first call.

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 already covers both parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining that repo uses the GitHub API with no clone, dir works offline on a local checkout, and the default is the current directory, which helps an agent choose correctly.

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 states a specific verb and resource: statically lints GitHub Actions workflows and action manifests. It also differentiates from siblings by emphasizing 'only' and 'no run history, fast', and enumerates concrete rules, so an agent can clearly identify what this tool does.

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?

It gives clear usage context: pass repo for remote API linting or dir for local offline linting, with a default to the current directory. It does not explicitly name sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full alternative routing.

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