gx3_lint

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explicitly states 'Writes one CSV per check to the working directory,' which is a crucial side-effect and goes beyond just the tool's name. It also lists the types of checks. However, it doesn't mention whether source files are modified or if specific permissions are needed, leaving some minor gaps.

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 two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then disclose the output mechanism. It avoids fluff and every detail serves a purpose, making it highly efficient for an AI agent to parse.

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?

The description covers the tool's primary function (static lint checks) and its output side-effect (CSVs per check). Given that the schema fully documents parameters and there is no output schema, the description provides sufficient context to understand the tool's behavior. A minor shortcoming is not explaining how results are presented beyond the CSV files, but that is not critical.

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?

The input schema fully describes both parameters — 'root' as 'Extracted project folder' and 'checks' as 'Comma-separated check names, or "all" (default)'. Since schema description coverage is 100%, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning.

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 performs 'Static lint' and enumerates specific check categories (duplicate coils, multi-writers, alarm quality, etc.), making its purpose unambiguous. It also notes the output behavior (writes CSVs), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like gx3_list_commands or gx3_trace_device.

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 static analysis but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or mention any exclusions. There is no comparison to sibling tools like gx3_dead_logic or gx3_interlock_check, so usage guidance is only implicit.

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