ruff_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, but it only offers the generic phrase 'Run Ruff diagnostics'. It fails to disclose whether the operation is read-only, how output is returned, how the 'paths' parameter affects behavior, or whether any files or settings are modified, leaving significant ambiguity.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence—'Run Ruff diagnostics'—with no unnecessary words or repetition. It is maximally concise for the limited information it conveys.

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 only the bare action and omits usage guidance, parameter semantics, and behavioral details. While an output schema exists and the tool is relatively simple, the lack of contextual information (e.g., when to use it, what 'paths' does) makes the overall description inadequate for confident tool selection and invocation.

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 single parameter 'paths' has no description and the schema coverage is 0%. The description does not compensate by explaining what 'paths' represents, its default behavior, or the expected input format. The agent is left with no semantic understanding of the parameter beyond its name.

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 action ('Run') and the resource ('Ruff diagnostics'), identifying the tool as a linter. It is distinguishable from sibling tools basedpyright and pytest by naming Ruff, though it is slightly vague about what 'diagnostics' entails.

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?

No usage guidance is provided. The description does not explain when to use this tool instead of basedpyright or pytest, nor does it mention any prerequisites, file types, or configuration context. It simply states what the tool does without any situational guidance.

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