gx3_lint

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool reads the project, writes one CSV per check plus a JSON summary, and that findings are advisory rather than definitive. This is excellent transparency about side effects and interpretation.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by a compact list of covered checks, then behavioral and prerequisite notes. Every sentence carries load-bearing information with no filler.

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 tool without an output schema, the description adequately covers return behavior ('per-check summary with finding counts by severity'), file side effects, advisory semantics, and prerequisites. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and interpret results.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the specific check categories an agent can expect, which helps interpret the 'checks' parameter even though the schema already documents comma-separated names or 'all'. The 'root' parameter meaning is already clear from 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?

The description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Run static review checks over the whole project' and names the exact kinds of checks. This clearly distinguishes lint from sibling tools like gx3_trace_device or gx3_data_flow, which serve different inspection purposes.

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 conveys when to use this tool: when a whole-project static review with per-check severity summaries is needed. It also gives the prerequisite that index and xref DBs are needed for the full check set. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, but the scope is clear enough.

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