lint_interactive

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

Describes interactive behavior and detected tech stack but does not clarify whether linting is executed after the prompt or what the return value is. With no annotations, more detail on side effects or subsequent actions would improve transparency.

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 sentences, no redundant information. Efficiently conveys core functionality.

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?

Given only one parameter and no output schema, description provides sufficient context for an interactive tool. Lacks explicit mention of return value or subsequent actions, but sufficient for basic understanding.

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% with one param (dirPath) described as absolute path. Description adds context that directory is used for tech stack detection, but this is marginal value beyond 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?

Description clearly states it asks about linting and generates an interactive prompt with detected tech stack and linting options. Distinguishes itself from sibling tools like catch_bugs or check_style by focusing on an interactive linting workflow.

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?

Implied usage for interactive linting when user input is desired, but no explicit guidance on when to use versus sibling tools like check_style (automated style checks) or catch_bugs (bug detection). Lacks when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations.

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