lint_prompt

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It mentions no LLM call and lists check categories, but does not disclose return format, side effects (none expected but not stated), or any required privileges. The behavior is partially transparent.

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?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose and examples, no redundant information. Every word earned 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?

Given low complexity (3 params, no nested objects), the description covers the what and broad categories but lacks information about output format (e.g., list of issues). With no output schema, return value should be described for completeness.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds marginal value by explaining how draft enables comparison rules and context provides background, but the prompt parameter is simply restated. No additional formats or constraints beyond 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?

The description clearly states the tool checks prompts for common issues, listing specific categories (unresolved placeholders, suspect acronym expansions, leaked meta-commentary). It distinguishes from sibling tools as a linting tool, with a clear verb and resource.

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 implies usage for pre-checking prompt quality before finalizing, but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives or when not to use. The 'No LLM call' hint is useful but lacks exclusions.

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