Lint Carve

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful context about what the linter detects ('author-facing problems and silent degradation'), but it does not disclose return format, error behavior, or whether any action is taken. The read-only annotation mitigates the need for mutation details.

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 short sentence that is front-loaded with the action ('Check') and the resource ('Carve source'). Every word contributes to the purpose; there is no redundancy.

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?

Given two parameters, no output schema, and read-only annotations, the description is mostly sufficient for a simple linting operation. The main gaps are the unexplained `platforms` parameter and the fact that the return value (e.g., diagnostics list) is not specified. An agent could infer behavior from the verb 'Check', but it is not fully explicit.

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 description adds no parameter-level meaning. The `source` parameter is described in the schema, but `platforms` has no schema description and the tool description also does not explain what `platforms` controls. With 50% schema coverage, the description should compensate for the undocumented `platforms` parameter, but it does not.

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 uses the specific verb 'Check' with the resource 'Carve source' and specifies the goal: detecting 'author-facing problems and silent degradation.' This clearly distinguishes it from siblings carve_format, carve_render, carve_parse, and carve_migrate, each implying a different operation.

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 description implies this is the linting/validation tool for Carve source, but it does not explicitly state when to use it over siblings or when not to use it. There are no exclusions or alternative routing; the agent must infer from the name and the verb 'Check' that this is the validation tool.

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