run_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 does not state whether the lint script may modify files, what happens if lint errors are found, or whether it is a safe read-only operation. This is a significant transparency gap for a tool that could potentially auto-fix issues.

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 concise sentence that immediately states the action and its condition. Every word is purposeful, with no filler or repetition, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 the tool has no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain behavior more fully. It does not clarify what happens if no lint script is configured (no-op vs. error), nor does it describe the output or side effects. The simplicity of the tool does not excuse this lack of context, especially since siblings like run_all_validation suggest a broader validation workflow.

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 tool has 0 parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, but none is needed since the schema already covers everything. There is no confusion or missing parameter documentation.

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 states a clear verb and resource: 'Run website lint script.' This distinguishes it from typechecking or unit tests, but it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like run_all_validation or validate_changed_files, so it lacks explicit sibling differentiation.

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 phrase 'when configured' provides a prerequisite condition but offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like run_typecheck or run_unit_tests. No mention of typical workflows (e.g., run before commit) or exclusions, leaving the agent without clear decision criteria.

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