lint_project

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool performs validation checks on projects without destructive actions, clearly stating what it validates. This gives the agent a good behavioral expectation.

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 efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and usage. No extraneous words.

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 the low complexity (one parameter, no output schema), the description fully covers what the tool does and why to use it. It is complete and self-contained.

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 input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter. The description does not add extra details about the parameter beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 specifies a clear verb 'Validate' and a specific resource 'whole project', listing exact types of issues checked (dangling references, orphaned resources, etc.). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like compile_project or list_resources.

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 explicitly advises to 'run this before trusting a project is safe to open', providing clear when-to-use guidance. It does not explicitly mention when not to use or alternatives, but the context of sibling tools implies appropriate usage.

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