Lint Spec

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description adds meaningful behavior beyond that: it discloses the returned data shape (violations grouped by severity with rule details and affected paths) and the important prerequisite of project context. This goes beyond what the structured annotations alone provide.

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 short sentences with no redundancy: purpose, return format, and prerequisite. The most important information is front-loaded, and every sentence earns its place.

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?

For a simple single-parameter tool with a readOnly annotation, the description covers purpose, return structure, and the project-context requirement. The only notable gap is not addressing the closely related sibling validate_spec, which could leave an agent uncertain about tool selection.

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 schema already fully documents specId with a clear description and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds no additional detail about the parameter, but none is needed given the schema coverage.

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 a specific action ('Validate an API specification') against a specific resource ('style guide rules'), which distinguishes it from generic validation tools like validate_spec. However, it does not explicitly name or contrast any sibling tool, so it stops short of full 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 only usage guidance is 'Requires project context,' which is a precondition rather than a when-to-use instruction. It does not explain when to choose lint_spec over validate_spec or other specification-related tools, and it offers no exclusions or alternative routing.

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