lint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and largely succeeds: it discloses the return object structure, the 50-defect cap/truncation behavior, and the downstream consequence of unsatisfiable schemas. It does not explicitly state that the operation is non-mutating, but 'Check' and the return contract strongly imply a read-only analysis.

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?

Four dense sentences deliver the purpose, defect examples, return contract, parameter format, usage timing, and version constraint without filler. The purpose is front-loaded and every clause earns its place.

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 single-parameter lint tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it covers the input type, return fields, result truncation, version restriction, and the situations that warrant calling it. Nothing essential to invoking the tool correctly is missing.

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 describes `input` fully as 'Spec file path or public https URL,' and the description only restates this. It adds no new syntax, resolution, or error-handling details beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 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?

States a concrete action ('Check') on a concrete resource ('an OpenAPI spec') with a precise goal: find schemas no value can satisfy. Concrete examples like 'array with a scalar enum' and the 'OpenAPI 3.x only' constraint make the tool's role unambiguous among siblings.

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?

Explicitly tells the agent when to invoke it: before serving/deploying a spec or when a mock returns unexpected validation errors. It does not name alternatives or state exclusions, but the timing guidance is clear and actionable.

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