Lint (structured)

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and it does disclose the underlying engine (biome) and the structured output shape, which is useful. However, it says nothing about the mutating `fix` path (files modified on disk), dependency/toolchain prerequisites, or failure behavior when biome is absent or config is missing — significant gaps for a tool that can write.

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, front-loaded with what it runs and what it returns, then the differentiator versus raw output, then the severity knob. No filler, though the middle sentence is a soft marketing claim rather than actionable information.

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?

An output schema exists and all parameters are schema-documented, so the description does not need to re-explain return values or params; it correctly focuses on engine identity and the compactness rationale. The one meaningful hole is the lack of any note that `fix` mutates source files, which matters for an otherwise complete definition.

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 the schema already documents all six parameters including detailLevel presets and the minSeverity enum semantics. The description's 'Use minSeverity to filter by severity level' merely restates what the enum description already says, adding no new syntax or precedence detail beyond the schema.

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?

Names a concrete verb and engine ('Run biome check') and specifies the return shape (file, line, column, message, rule), so an agent knows exactly what it produces. It implicitly separates itself from npm_test/npm_typecheck by being lint-only, but never names a sibling or an alternative tool explicitly.

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 only guidance is a preference claim ('Far more compact and parseable than raw lint output') plus a hint to use minSeverity for filtering. There is no statement of when to choose this over npm_test, npm_typecheck, or a raw shell lint invocation, and no exclusions or prerequisites.

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