lint_drawing

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It fully discloses behavior: two scanning modes, specific checks, non-destructive returns JSON. No contradictions or hidden side effects.

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?

Three well-organized paragraphs: overview, session mode, SVG mode+usage. Each sentence adds value. Slightly verbose but still clear and efficient.

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?

Output schema exists and is referenced. Description covers all aspects: return format, modes, specific checks, usage timing. No gaps given tool's simplicity.

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 has only svg_path (optional, default '') with 0% description coverage. Description adds full meaning: explains SVG mode activation and what it scans. Completely compensates for schema gap.

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?

Description clearly states the tool runs structural drawing-quality checks, specifies two modes (session vs SVG), and lists exact checks (label-vs-measured-length divergence, leader elbows, text fill issues). Distinguishes from sibling tools like inspect_drawing and health_check by focusing on specific structural bugs.

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?

Explicitly advises to run after major drawing additions and before rendering to catch bugs early. Lacks explicit 'when not to use' or comparisons to similar tools, but the context is clear enough for an agent.

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