Run the project's ESLint npm script

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

Annotations indicate the tool is not read-only and not destructive, but the description adds little beyond that. It mentions running an existing script, implying the tool will execute a npm script but does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., modifying files), authentication needs, or error behavior. The description does not contradict annotations.

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 a single concise sentence with no fluff. It front-loads the action and is immediately informative.

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 tool with 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain prerequisites (e.g., ESLint must be installed, a lint script must exist), the return value or output format, or behavior on failure. The agent lacks enough context to use the tool confidently.

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?

With only 40% schema coverage, the description adds some value by explaining the 'args' parameter ('optional extra arguments') and implying the 'script' parameter defaults to 'lint' ('normally npm run lint'). However, it does not address 'cwd', 'project', or 'timeoutSeconds', which remain underdocumented.

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 it runs an existing lint script, typically 'npm run lint', with optional extra arguments. The verb 'runs' and resource 'lint script' are specific, and the tool name 'run_eslint' reinforces this. It distinguishes from siblings like 'run_command' or 'run_npm' by focusing on linting.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_command' or 'run_npm'. It does not specify when not to use it, such as when lint is not defined or when a different lint runner is needed. The agent is left to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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