Lint Tonel Smalltalk Content

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds the input source (content string) but no additional behavioral context such as what linting checks, whether diagnostics are returned, or any side effects. It does not contradict the 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, front-loaded sentence that clearly states the tool's purpose without any extra words or fluff, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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?

The tool is simple with a rich schema and supportive annotations, but the description lacks explicit disambiguation from the validate_* siblings and does not explain what "lint" entails beyond the verb. It adequately handles the input format but leaves some contextual gaps for an agent choosing among siblings.

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 has 100% coverage for the single parameter file_content, which is described as "The Tonel file content as a string." The description merely repeats the notion of "content string" without adding any semantic value beyond the schema, so a baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 "Lint" with a clear resource ("Tonel formatted Smalltalk source code") and scope ("from content string"), which distinctly identifies the tool's function and differentiates it from the sibling tool lint_tonel_smalltalk_from_file.

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?

Use is implied by the phrase "from content string," suggesting this tool is for content strings rather than files. However, the description provides no explicit guidance on when to prefer this tool over lint_tonel_smalltalk_from_file or the validate_* tools, leaving the decision to the agent.

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