Bash lint (structured)

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

readOnlyHint=true already tells the agent this is a safe read, so the bar is lower. The description adds that output is structured and compact, but says nothing about prerequisites (shellcheck must be installed), behavior on unparseable/missing files, or whether exit status reflects findings.

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?

Three short sentences with the capability and output shape front-loaded and no filler. The final sentence largely repeats the schema's minSeverity description, a minor 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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description covers what it needs to. The remaining gap is operational context (tool dependency, failure behavior) rather than anything required to select or invoke it.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so all four parameters including the two enums are documented in the schema. The description only restates minSeverity's filtering effect, adding nothing beyond what the schema already says, so baseline 3 is correct.

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 specific verb and resource ('Run shellcheck') and describes the return shape (file, line, column, message, SC rule code), which an agent can use to decide relevance. It does not, however, differentiate itself from the nearby bash_syntax_check or bash_test 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?

The mention that it is 'much more compact than raw shellcheck output' implies you should prefer it over raw shellcheck, and 'Use minSeverity to filter' hints at a workflow. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not or routing to bash_syntax_check or bash_test, so usage is only implied.

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