Lint Lucene Query

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

readOnlyHint=true already covers the safety profile, but the description adds a genuinely non-redundant behavioral fact: the query is never executed, which readOnlyHint alone does not guarantee (a read-only tool could still execute a query). It stops short of describing the result shape — whether findings come back as a list, a boolean, or an error.

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 tight sentences: the first front-loads the three check categories, the second delivers the key behavioral guarantee. Nothing is repeated or padded.

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?

For a simple two-parameter, read-only tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the description covers purpose and the non-execution guarantee. The only meaningful gap is that an agent cannot predict the shape of the lint findings without invoking 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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, including the projectId explanation about project-specific Work Item fields. The description's mention of 'unknown work-item fields' only loosely gestures at the projectId scoping behavior without adding detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 specific verb (check/lint) and resource (Lucene query), and enumerates exactly what classes of problem it detects: unknown work-item fields, unbalanced quotes/parentheses, suspicious boolean operators. No sibling tool in the list performs query validation, so it is trivially distinguishable from the CRUD/search 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 description implies the use case (validating a query you intend to run) and the closing sentence reinforces that it is a non-executing pre-flight check, but it never explicitly says 'call this before search_work_items' or states any condition under which it should be skipped. Usage is inferable rather than stated.

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